Excerpts from William Herrin on Fri, Apr 17, 2009 02:19:10PM -0400:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I question whether rough
> > consensus is even a good idea in a research environment.  That a few people
> > agree on terms is sufficient for THEM to collaborate together.  That others
> > do not agree may be sufficient for those others to collaborate, and let the
> > best research win.

This is different from a pure research environment.  We have goals,
even milestones.

> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The IETF (and RRG) seek _rough_ consensus.  The fact that they do so by a
> > show of hands, a hum, or a doodle poll is merely a matter of mechanism.
> >  It's all just voting.
> 
> http://collaborationzone.com/consensus-isnt-taking-a-vote/
> 
> "Sounds like voting to me. Same process, same outcome: An idea is
> presented, there is discussion, the majority “wins,” and there is a
> disaffected minority who agrees to “live with” the decision - until
> the next chance they get to change it. Which means you’ll get to make
> this decision again…and again…and again. And that’s pretty much the
> opposite of a decision made by consensus."

Well, here I'll disagree.  Classic consensus is one of the few
outcomes we shouldn't bother pursuing.  We can produce:

  - one or more architectural possibilities, fully explored, which the
    IETF can then evaluate on its terms.  However, these shouldn't
    just be whatever ideas people want to produce (à la what Eliot
    said), since the RRG is in a special situation right now.  The RRG
    should have ROUGH consensus that they are worth taking to the IETF
    for further work.  Sometimes these ideas take themselves to the
    IETF and ask the IETF's opinion directly and the RRG doesn't have
    to make a decision.

  - a framework for the IETF to use when proceeding (this seems to be
    what Tony's recommendation draft is heading toward).

  - critiques of ideas that have been brought up elsewhere, not in
    RRG, in terms of the above.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to