Subject: Consensus on the email list

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:28:56 +0000

DCRUP is going to have to make a consensus decision on the mailing list.  (See the “ed25519 in DNS thread” if you’re curious.)  Any tips on how to do that?  I have only done “confirm on the list afterwards” before.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:53:54 -0400

Hi Rich,

> DCRUP is going to have to make a consensus decision on the mailing list.  (See the “ed25519 in DNS thread” if you’re curious.)  Any tips on how to do that?  I have only done “confirm on the list af…

The technique I have used in the past is to run the consensus call like
a WG Last Call for a document. State the question, list the possible
answers, give a time frame (e.g., two weeks), and then assess the
consensus after that time has elapsed.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:49:06 -0400

Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> DCRUP is going to have to make a consensus decision on the mailing
    >>list.  (See the “ed25519 in DNS thread” if you’re curious.)  Any tips on
    >>how to do that?  I have only done “confirm on the list afterwards”
    >>before.

    > consensus after that time has elapsed.

I was going to say exactly that, but add that I think it's important that
at the half-way point, someone (the uninvolved co-chair) post a reminder and
a review of what was said so far.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:25:38 +0000

> a review of what was said so far.

Not quite the question asked, but I had good success using Poll Junkie 
(http://www.polljunkie.com) during a virtual interim recently.  It's
free and the results are anonymous.

Kent

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:36:38 -0400

Kent,

I believe IETF processes require attribution for determining consensus, so
(for example) after comments have been addressed, the original commenters
can be polled to ensure that they’re OK with the result. Thus I don’t know
if an anonymous poll is best when determining WG consensus.

Anyone, please let me know if I’m wrong.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:54:42 -0700

On 4/5/18 10:36 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I believe IETF processes require attribution for determining consensus,

I'm actually not sure that's the case, but either way this form
of polling looks a lot like voting, and that's a problem.

Melinda

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:23:24 -0500

On 4/2/18 10:28 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> list.  (See the “ed25519 in DNS thread” if you’re curious.) Any tips 
> on how to do that?  I have only done “confirm on the list afterwards” 
> before.
>

Although it's merely a set of tips and not policy in any way, you might 
find it useful to review the contents of RFC 7282.

/a

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:33:21 -0400

Attribution? Isn't that the exact opposite of the reason for humming?

RFC7282 "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF" points out that consensus 
is not "a significant majority" but is "There are no unaddressed issues 
that will prevent interoperability." (Those aren't quotes, but paraphrases).

It also says that determining whether an issue has been adequately 
addresses is a WG decision, not solely up to the objector:

Now, a conclusion of having only rough consensus relies heavily on
    the good judgement of the consensus caller.  The group must truly
    consider and weigh an issue

That paragraph (Section 3) explains why we need technical WG chairs, and 
why we have an appeals process in case they make a questionable 
judgement. (And noting the variance from rfc7282 and previous 
definitions from rfc1603 and rfc2418).

I think it's important to remember that, as stated in Section 5, 
consensus is not an end in itself. It is a tool to improve our odds of 
arriving at a best solution.

Lee

On 04/05/2018 01:36 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Kent,
>
> I believe IETF processes require attribution for determining 
> consensus, so (for example) after comments have been addressed, the 
> original commenters can be polled to ensure that they’re OK with the 
> result. Thus I don’t know if an anonymous poll is best when 
> determining WG consensus.
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Kent Watsen <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:56:02 -0700

I think "require" is too strong a word. However, as a working group chair, it is not unusual for me to ask people (unicast) who have commented during WGLC whether an updated draft addresses their concerns. I have to know whom to ask...

One place I scratch my head with polls is the difference between a poll and a vote. After IETF 79, Beijing, I posted a SurveyMonkey question about each of the (many) documents that had been presented and briefly discussed, and was called to account by someone who wanted a given result and had 50%+1 in favor of that. If it were a vote, 50%+1 would have carried, and that was how he interpreted it. In a consensus call, rough consensus is more in the direction of 90%+ - I would go so far as wanting at most one dissension, and that having been heard out and discussed, and still unresolved.

YMMV

> On Apr 5, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Kent,
> 
> I believe IETF processes require attribution for determining consensus, so (for example) after comments have been addressed, the original commenters can be polled to ensure that they’re OK with the result. Thus I don’t know if an anonymous poll is best when determining WG consensus.
>