Hi - >From: Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> >Sent: Jun 12, 2013 12:42 PM >To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> >Cc: "<ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com>" <ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com>, Alexey >Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com>, Pete Resnick ><presn...@qti.qualcomm.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments > >On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: >> I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have >> more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF >> participant than Pete does... > >FWIW, until I read Pete's document on consensus, I thought that +1 >statements were part of the consensus process. This was not a >strongly held opinion—it was just my understanding of how >consensus operated, from having watched other working group >chairs run their working groups. I think the point Pete is >making is very important, because the consensus process Pete >describes is more in keeping with how I think the IETF ought >to operate than the process in which +1 counts for something. ...
As a former WG chair who's had to deal with some very rough consensus calls... Not "counting" a "+1" is more consistent with a classical definition of consensus. But, particularly at a WG level (less so, perhaps, at the IETF level) "+1" is very helpful in determining whether the previously mentioned "Abilene Paradox" should be of concern. Randy
