On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
>>> non-IETF context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007
>>> with the catchy title "Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its
>>> Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus".
>>
>> We deal with that quite a bit. I can think of discussions in v6ops and on
>> this list in which a single person contributed one message in four in a 200+
>> message thread, and although he was the lone speaker with that viewpoint, my
>> co-chair told me he thought we lacked consensus.
>
> There's also a common tendency of some kinds of groups to categorically
> dismiss the opinions of those that they see as outliers, even to the point of
> diminishing their numbers. If one of those objecting happens to defend his
> viewpoint vigorously and to respond to numerous attacks on not only his
> viewpoint but also his legitimacy, motivation, character, etc., there is a
> tendency among some to dismiss his opinions even more.
>
> All of these clearly happened in recent discussions in v6ops.
>
> It's certainly true that one lone speaker should not be able to deny rough
> consensus to a group. That's why the consensus only has to be "rough". But
> if the group doesn't even try to understand a minority view, it cannot be
> said to have tried to reach consensus of any kind.
Quite contrary imho if you want to speak of 6to4-to-historic in specific. The
viewpoint most effusively expressed by yourself is quite well understood. Lack
of reconciliation does not imply that it was simply swept under the rug.
>> To my mind, it's not a matter of voting (how many people think A, how many
>> people think B, ...) and not a matter of volume (which would accept a
>> filibuster as a showstopper). It's a question of the preponderance of
>> opinion ("agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity,
>> solidarity; formal concord") coupled with listening carefully to those who
>> disagree and determining whether their arguments actually make sense and
>> point up an issue. I will recognize a single person's point at issue if it
>> appears that they are not being listened to or their issue dealt with. If
>> they are simply hammering a point, and their point is incorrect, I will note
>> that they have been hammering an incorrect point ("even though you are
>> sending one email in four in a long thread and are expressing extreme
>> concern about a draft because it does ____, I will overlook your objections
>> because it doesn't do that.") and move on.
>
> I'd agree with that logic. Though I note that "incorrect" is sometimes
> subjective.
I'd go a little further. It is trivially possible to establish two opposing
positions neither of which are "wrong".
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
