I did not personally vote before the poll closed, but if forced to
chose I would probably have said "nea".
I partly didn't vote because I do not think agreeing to, or perhaps
divining, the "pure" definition for "locator" moves us very far along
the path toward a solution. At the start of this discussion I did,
but I don't now. There seem to be a lot of different kinds of things
we want to talk about, 3 or 4 of which could reasonably map
(semantically) to the term "locator".
As it stands, I think the definition brought to the poll is a little
too fuzzy to be useful (for reasons I have described previously), but
if it is helpful for others, so be it.
R,
Dow
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:56 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
Again, the poll can be found here: http://doodle.com/9sybb8dmk5phvp99
The poll has now closed. The ayes have it, 10 to 4 (71%), which is
reasonably clear consensus. The definitions listed are hereby
adopted.
10 people would have to hum awfully loud to form a consensus among
the
crowd RRG draws at the meetings.
Not if the rest of them were silent, which is effectively what has
happened.
Hi Tony,
Had only two people responded and both said "yes", you'd know better
than to call it a consensus. I'm not sure why 14 respondents including
dissent should suggest a different conclusion.
A consensus check is not a vote. Consensus is an affirmative finding,
not a balance between affirmative and negative. Unlike a vote, there
are three possible outcomes: consensus for, consensus against and no
consensus.
For a weak consensus (or "rough consensus" if you prefer the IETF
parlance) you're looking for one of two situations:
Situation A:
1. The stakeholders are present
2. A simple majority join the consensus.
3. No more than a single-digit-percentage join the dissent
Situation B:
1. The stakeholders are present
2. A significant minority join the consensus.
3. No dissent.
If the meeting attendance is any guide, 14 respondents is not a
majority of the RRG. Further, there was nearly 30% dissent.
Your methodology was in error. By failing to consider the stakeholders
present but non-responsive, you pre-eliminated the possibility of "no
consensus," requiring respondents to either vote for or against the
particular definition. That's not a consensus; that's a vote.
Corrected for non-response, the proper conclusion from your data is:
No consensus.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
