Pete, On 10/10/2013 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >> I think it misses two >> important points that should be addressed prior to publication: >> >> 1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and >> gauging consensus >> > > Yeah, as I just replied to Tom, I think this is worth adding, probably > in section 2 or 3.
great. > >> 2) That some participants/chairs/I*s like seeing hands, and that's okay >> > > Yes, this is directly said in section 4, paragraphs 4 & 5. What do you > think is missing? It says hum+hands. My point is hands-only is okay and can be essentially equivalent to the "humming" described in your document. I think it would be valuable to make this point explicitly, as I essentially everything else you say in the document. And I completely agree with your point that a show of hands (& a poll on the list) are not votes. > >> There are different ways to achieve and determine consensus. As stated >> in RFC2418: >> Consensus >> can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on >> which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% >> of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is >> better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough >> consensus has been reached. >> > > As I said in my reply to Dave, there's part of the above that I disagree > with, or at least think is an oversimplification. But it definitely need > citing. got it, but as you say this document is Informational and doesn't propose any change to IETF process, while RFC2418 is a BCP which does define process. Lou > > pr >
