Dave Storrs writes:
: Here's my question of procedure: plenty of times on these lists,
: I see something that I think is a really good idea. I don't want to waste
: bandwidth by posting just a "me too!", but I also don't want the idea to
: die because no one weighed in in support of it.
If it's in an RFC, it won't die for lack of consideration.
: Is there a mechanism in place for this, or could we set up
: something on the website for voting on the RFCs (perhaps with conditions,
: like "I agree with this as long as XYZ is [not] done")?
If something's a good idea, it'll either be obvious, in which case it
doesn't matter if it's voted on, or it'll be not so obvious, in which
case goodness of the idea emerges from the many ramifications that will
no doubt be hashed out in the ensuing discussion. So the idea is that
we "vote" by exploring the ramifications of the hypothesis. (If there
are no ramifications, perhaps the idea isn't so important.)
If something's a bad idea, then a few counterexamples will usually make
that obvious.
If something's a mediocre idea, maybe it can be refined into a good idea,
and maybe it can't. But voting is unlikely to help there either.
Voting doesn't produce consensus. Discussion sometimes does.
Larry
