Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Stewart == Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are religious arguments on the other side: I want my architectural diagrams; they work well in the ITU and I want them here, is on the same level as I won't use MS software. Stewart Sam Stewart I disagree that the use of diagrams is a religious Stewart issue. Diagrams are a very simple way to I think the discussion has reached an all time low. We're arguing about whether something is a religious issue or not. I think I'll add one more reason to why I think it is important to consider religious issues: that way,you don't have to argue about whether something is religious. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy == Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sandy Brian Rosen wrote (about the format issue): It's probably true that we can push this problem off another year, but maybe not, and definitely not for very much longer. Sandy I think that everyone here is aware of that, which is why Sandy we keep coming back to it, and will continue to until the Sandy agents of change win. I've only been following the IETF Sandy for a couple of years now, but this discussion seems to Sandy come closer to adopting a change every time I see it. And that's what we call building consensus. It how we conduct our business and while for things like this it is conservative, it does move. I do think that if the proponents pull together an experiment, we may find that within two years, we have a proposal that can get consensus. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy == Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sandy Gray, Eric wrote: Sandy, In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change is not the default outcome in most human organizations. That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go with a change as there are people prepared to make changes. Sandy I think that there is also a very strong element of Sandy emotional attachment to any system or solution, from those Sandy people who had a hand in creating it (Certainly, I'm just Sandy as guilty of this as the next guy!). Any job is harder if Sandy you have to change your tools every time you get used to Sandy them. I think that's a valuable thing to consider in consensus building. This makes me retool how I do things; it works well today, is actually a valid input to a discussion. Sandy It's also true that some people will object to Sandy anything in front of them, simply because it was done by Sandy someone else. I'm having a hard time arguing that this is a good thing. Sandy We also have the religious responses, both Sandy pro and con, where someone either approves (or disapproves) Sandy of it simply because of the source. We've all seen It's Sandy gotta be good, Jon Postel wrote it, as well as I'll cut Sandy my wrists before I use MS software I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are religious arguments on the other side: I want my architectural diagrams; they work well in the ITU and I want them here, is on the same level as I won't use MS software. Note that related to religious arguments may be more practical issues as well. Sandy It appears that, if we want to judge solution-quality Sandy by mob volume, we need to find some way to separate the Sandy emotional responses from the reasoned responses. I disagree that discarding the emotional responses is appropriate. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are religious arguments on the other side: I want my architectural diagrams; they work well in the ITU and I want them here, is on the same level as I won't use MS software. Sam I disagree that the use of diagrams is a religious issue. Diagrams are a very simple way to put specification and context together in a compact notation such that it is easy to move from key point to key point in a non-linear way. They provide visual hyperlinking. Here is a good way to judge the value of a diagram: Look at a diagram presented in an IETF WG session and ask the questions : does this diagram make the draft easier to understand? If the answer is yes, then the diagram should probably be in the draft. The problem is that it is frequently impossible to translate the clarity of the graphics used in the presentation to the technology of ASCII art. - Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--On Monday, 09 January, 2006 18:17 + Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are religious arguments on the other side: I want my architectural diagrams; they work well in the ITU and I want them here, is on the same level as I won't use MS software. I disagree that the use of diagrams is a religious issue. Diagrams are a very simple way to put specification and context together in a compact notation such that it is easy to move from key point to key point in a non-linear way. They provide visual hyperlinking. Stewart, While I agree that diagrams are not simply a religious issue, I think that there are many cases in which the use of diagrams, especially complex ones, leaves people with the impression that they have understood something when, in fact, they do not. Ed Tufte's work, among many others, has provided repeated graphical, and often humorous, illustrations of that point. Part of that issue overlaps the resistance to WG sessions that are dominated by PowerPoint presentations every time that discussion breaks out, although some of that discussion is driven by what are clearly religious issues. This brings us back to one on the early comments in these threads -- that the need to describe a complex concept in text or in ASCII art imposes a discipline that is actually quite useful. I agree with you that there are some things that cannot be thus described with a sensible amount of effort, but it has seemed to me that it would be helpful, from a document quality standpoint, to examine each case and to try to strive for the minimum diagram complexity that is actually necessary. I get even more concerned when it is suggested that not only are diagrams are needed, but that color documents may be needed. While things are easier than they were a decade or two ago, the need to transmit and render color images imposes costs in both printing facilities and transmission sizes of documents that I, at least, would prefer to avoid unless necessity can be demonstrated. Sam can, and I hope will, speak for himself, but my experience working with programmers with visual difficulties some years ago suggests that while monochrome line art --whether conveniently expressible in ASCII or not-- can often be made comprehensible with sufficient effort, either continuous-tone materials or line-art drawings that depend on color are fairly close to impossible. Here is a good way to judge the value of a diagram: Look at a diagram presented in an IETF WG session and ask the questions : does this diagram make the draft easier to understand? If the answer is yes, then the diagram should probably be in the draft. I think that criterion leads down a slippery slope toward documents that are collections of PowerPoint images. The understanding of a document in a WG session can be improved by an oral presentation with selected bullet points on slides, too, but that doesn't automatically make the case that either that the bullet points ought to be precisely the section headings of the document or that the slides should be included with the text. The problem is that it is frequently impossible to translate the clarity of the graphics used in the presentation to the technology of ASCII art. Assuming we agree on that, can we figure out some criteria or guidelines for keeping graphics to the minimum complexity needed to express ideas, for being sure that graphics are accompanied by good explanations whenever possible, and generally for preventing people from going hog-wild with complex colored illustrations? It seems to me that, if possible, we also need to find ways to be sure that any normative graphics that appear in I-Ds can be edited with tools that are easily accessible on all relevant platforms. Most of the above of course are probably best taken as input to, or evaluation criteria for, precisely the sort of experiment that Sam suggests. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
On 01/09/2006 14:02 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: While I agree that diagrams are not simply a religious issue, I think that there are many cases in which the use of diagrams, especially complex ones, leaves people with the impression that they have understood something when, in fact, they do not. the need to describe a complex concept in text or in ASCII art imposes a discipline that is actually quite useful. Yup, although we've seen plenty of cases where people understand text differently as well. I think I'm beginning to like TeX again. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
I disagree that the use of diagrams is a religious issue. Diagrams are a very simple way to put specification and context together in a compact notation such that it is easy to move from key point to key point in a non-linear way. They provide visual hyperlinking. Stewart, While I agree that diagrams are not simply a religious issue, I think that there are many cases in which the use of diagrams, especially complex ones, leaves people with the impression that they have understood something when, in fact, they do not. Ed Tufte's work, among many others, has provided repeated graphical, and often humorous, illustrations of that point. That's an interesting way of looking at it that I hadn't considered before. Tufte's work is for the most part focused on elaboration of the best techniques for presenting things visually - lessons that few us seem to heed. But it also provides a catalog of how and sometimes even why things go wrong, as well as providing ample evidence of how surprisingly hard it is to get this stuff right. Part of that issue overlaps the resistance to WG sessions that are dominated by PowerPoint presentations every time that discussion breaks out, although some of that discussion is driven by what are clearly religious issues. I guess, although I find Tufte's monograph on PowerPoint to be pretty levelheaded but a savage indictment nevertheless. This brings us back to one on the early comments in these threads -- that the need to describe a complex concept in text or in ASCII art imposes a discipline that is actually quite useful. I agree with you that there are some things that cannot be thus described with a sensible amount of effort, but it has seemed to me that it would be helpful, from a document quality standpoint, to examine each case and to try to strive for the minimum diagram complexity that is actually necessary. Not to sound trite, but whether or not a diagram works to advantage is highly dependent on the visual aspects of the thing being diagrammed. And sometimes finding those aspects (or not finding them, as the case may be) requires some effort. For example, one time I drew out a state diagram for SMTP (which is surprisingly complex, BTW) with the intention of asking you to include it in 821bis (now 2821). I don't recall if I ever showed it to you or not, but it's a case where a diagram hurts rather than helps. But you have to draw it and fiddle with it in order to see it. The TCP state diagram, OTOH, is one where a diagram really helps. At least part of this is due to the fact that there are symmetries in the state flow that most easily observed in a diagram - they'd be hard to see in text. Another example is the teletex state machine (T.101 or something like that - I'm not going to bother to search for it) is so complex that the state diagram fills at least two pages and still leaves out some details. It seems likely that no amount of graphical or prose ingenuity would be sufficient to tame this particular beast. The authors of the specification that includes appear to have tried (and IMO failed). In any case, while I think better diagrams would be helpful, I am concerned that if we make them cheap and easy we will actually lower the quality of our specifications, not raise it. I get even more concerned when it is suggested that not only are diagrams are needed, but that color documents may be needed. While things are easier than they were a decade or two ago, the need to transmit and render color images imposes costs in both printing facilities and transmission sizes of documents that I, at least, would prefer to avoid unless necessity can be demonstrated. Sam can, and I hope will, speak for himself, but my experience working with programmers with visual difficulties some years ago suggests that while monochrome line art --whether conveniently expressible in ASCII or not-- can often be made comprehensible with sufficient effort, either continuous-tone materials or line-art drawings that depend on color are fairly close to impossible. It is incredibly easy to misuse color coding - in fact we have a good example in our own current processes. These days the RFC Editor makes available differences listings showing the changes been the draft and the final RFC. These listings show deleted stuff in struck out red letters and added stuff in dark green. This scheme may sound fine, but it isn't: Try finding an added commas or single letter change inside of a big block of black text. That one bit of green simply vanishes unless you look really, really close. And sometimes a comma can change the meaning of something quite dramatically. (I addressed this problem personally by regenerating the differences using my own tools that make more appropriate color choices.) I have to say I still find it amazing given the prevalence of red-green color blindness how much material on the web and how many applications blunder badly in their use
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
On Jan 6, 2006, at 09:02, Sandy Wills wrote: This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any, after a period of free discussion. If it's not a change, then there's no need for text suggesting how the IESG should judge consensus in this matter, is there? Ken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Ken Raeburn wrote: This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any, after a period of free discussion. If it's not a change, then there's no need for text suggesting how the IESG should judge consensus in this matter, is there? Apparently not. I entered into what looked to me like a discussion-becoming-an-argument with what seemed like a useful clarification of the rules, but even the desirability of doing so seems to have to fight to establish concensus. That, to me, is more than I want to put on my plate. I think I'll go back to lurking, and let those who are paid for this continue this discussion. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Binary choices, polling and so on (Re: objection to proposed change to consensus)
(changing the subject since the subject is changed...) --On fredag, januar 06, 2006 23:11:10 -0500 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the long-time IETF participants that they never take votes. All they do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and that reduces our options to simple binary choices. Thus, my attempt to create a binary method for asserting and testing a claim of concensus. I wouldn't call it religious, but it's part of the package deal that allows us to get away with not having members, and being very hard to take over effectively.. as soon as there's a set of rules, and a mechanistic method for deciding on the outcome of a decision, the price of buying an IETF decision becomes a known quantity instead of a you might try, but you're unlikely to get away with it if someone catches you uncertainty. That said... I like opinion polls, of various forms, and use them frequently (some would say too frequently... I guess I've demonstrated most of the bad sides of opinion polls over the years...). In the good cases, they allow us to quickly and clearly distinguish the pattern of opponents and proponents. In the bad case, they confirm what we already knew - that the group is deadlocked and unable to make a decision. That's the time to pull out Ted Hardie's RFC 3929 and look for some alternate methods - majority voting isn't listed there, and for good reason. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
On 1/6/06 11:11 PM, Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the long-time IETF participants that they never take votes. All they do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and that reduces our options to simple binary choices. Thus, my attempt to create a binary method for asserting and testing a claim of concensus. I think part of the problem we're having with decision making (to the extent that we're having a problem with decision-making) is that too many people really don't understand consensus at all. Consensus process leads to decisions being made through synthesis and restatement, and by the time that the question is asked Do we have consensus? we should pretty much have consensus already. Consensus is not a form of voting with overwhelming results, and I think that's where you're going somewhat far afield. Sometimes I think the IETF should change its decision-making processes - if nothing else, consensus-style decision-making doesn't work that well when some number of participants don't share the same investment in the process itself. But even so, I think better training of both participants and chairs would probably solve the bulk of the problems that have come up and should be tried before the organization gives serious consideration to changing how decisions are made. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
On Jan 5, 2006, at 18:35, Sandy Wills wrote: People who agree will mumble yeah under their breath and otherwise ignore the post. People who disagree will reply on the list. After two weeks, someone will compare the size of the subscriber list to the number of negative replies, and we'll all start gathering rocks together. Then there are people who will mumble, that's so stupid/bad/foolish/ misguided, and virtually all of the many responses are negative, it'll never pass, and otherwise ignore the post. I doubt I'm the only one who sometimes finds himself in that camp. Then there are those who will mumble, I don't care about this, and otherwise ignore the post. Like I do for the majority of the IETF- wide last-call announcements on things like, say, IP over MPEG-2, or Calendar Access Protocol. Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as no strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last Calls with I don't care about this, so please don't count me as supporting it? For an IETF-wide last call, I do think it's reasonable to assume that the proposing working group -- the rough consensus of the group, not necessarily every participant -- is indicating approval of the document by bringing it forward. But that's a *small* bias in favor, not a large one. Ken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Ken Raeburn wrote: Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as no strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last Calls with I don't care about this, so please don't count me as supporting it? We wouldn't count you as supporting it. We would count you as not objecting. That's all. Maybe there's another way to put it. How about: I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this CfC if you object. Do we need to put into the CfC that we are assuming agreement, and that people who don't care don't have to respond? I thought it obvious and understood by all (maybe that's my mistake, right there) that a CfC is a request to respond if you object. This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any, after a period of free discussion. It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks if anyone objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace. A CfC is assuming an agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to respond. Any other response is undesired. It's just noise that makes it harder to hear the useful objection responses. When you got married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up and say I'm okay with this marriage!? No, you wanted the entire room silent, so that you could hear any objection. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
So... here's the problem. Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as no strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last Calls with I don't care about this, so please don't count me as supporting it? Our technology support for do we have consensus stinks. We ask for feedback to a mailing list, knowing that me, too postings are (and should be) discouraged in most shared e-mail environments. What we get is exactly what you described - postings from a non-random subset of participants, and then we try to figure out what the sampling error is, and in which direction, based on not a lot more information. There is a safety mechanism, because when we REALLY miscount we can be appealed, but we don't use it often, and it's really an expensive mechanism to use. Sometimes chairs even remember to say, we also need to hear from people who AGREE, but not always. The mailing list archives would be even worse if everyone DID respond to all the Last Calls, so we need to be careful about what we ask for... It shouldn't be a vote (we don't vote - I know you know this, because you put vote in quotes), but if we had some way to let people say you know, I just don't care, that would help, too. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any, after a period of free discussion. It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks if anyone objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace. A CfC is assuming an agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to respond. Any other response is undesired. In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of no, so we're into the much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus-deciders that the naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or convincing the ones who asked for the consensus call that despite their strongly held convictions, there are good reasons why we shouldn't just do what they want. The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed - or rather - succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no present proposal that enjoys a strong consensus. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Hello; On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any, after a period of free discussion. It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks if anyone objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace. A CfC is assuming an agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to respond. Any other response is undesired. In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of no, so we're into the much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus- deciders that the naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or convincing the ones who asked for the consensus call that despite their strongly held convictions, there are good reasons why we shouldn't just do what they want. To me, this is the trouble with such proposals. If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it is fair to say that the majority either was in favor, or at least acquiesced. At least, if people complain later, you can say, you should have spoken up when appropriate. (I suppose, for symmetry, that the same could be said against a proposal if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but this must be rare indeed.) But, as soon as there are _any_ objections, then people could remain silent saying to themselves I agree or I don't care or I agree with the objections, which have been much better stated than I could do. You just don't know. So, I regard it as improper to assume support either way from the silent majority if there is any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't have consensus in the face of objections, but it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to all the people who remain silent. Regards Marshall The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed - or rather - succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no present proposal that enjoys a strong consensus. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Spencer So... here's the problem. Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as no strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last Calls with I don't care about this, so please don't count me as supporting it? Spencer Our technology support for do we have consensus Spencer stinks. We ask for feedback to a mailing list, knowing Spencer that me, too postings are (and should be) discouraged Spencer in most shared e-mail environments. What we get is Spencer exactly what you described - postings from a non-random Spencer subset of participants, and then we try to figure out Spencer what the sampling error is, and in which direction, based Spencer on not a lot more information. There is a safety Spencer mechanism, because when we REALLY miscount we can be Spencer appealed, but we don't use it often, and it's really an Spencer expensive mechanism to use. I'm not sure I consider this very broken. If I'm reading a last call and I have opinions that differ from the way the discussion is going, I'm certainly going to speak up. It seems to work fairly well in practice at determining rough consensus when there is a rough consensus to be determined. It gives questionable results in cases where the results are questionable; I'm not sure this a bug. Spencer some way to let people say you know, I just don't care, Spencer that would help, too. And what do we do with those people anyway? How would it help me to know there are 30 people who don't care? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
-- -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this -- CfC if you object. -- I object. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this -- CfC if you object. IMO an objection should be required to also have an explanation. I object. Why? to which parts? the grandfather/grandchildren? -- ~Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Spencer, -- -- It shouldn't be a vote (we don't vote - I know you know this, because you -- put vote in quotes), but if we had some way to let people say you know, -- I just don't care, that would help, too. -- I agree, and it could also be very useful should we ever start to realize that it is important to gauge who is paying attention as well as who is subscribed. -- Spencer -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Digression was-Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
At 9:02 AM -0500 1/6/06, Sandy Wills wrote: When you got married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up and say I'm okay with this marriage!? No, you wanted the entire room silent, so that you could hear any objection. Hi, This is a digression. Hit delete now unless you're willing to digress. Speaking as a liturgical die-hard, let me just note that the affirmative *is* asked in many forms of the marriage ceremony. In the Episcopal church, for example, the question takes this form: (Celebrant) Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage? (People) We will. (see http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/bocp4.htm for the full text) This requires that those who are present at the wedding take the affirmative step of saying they will support the marriage, which is considerably more than I'm okay with this. For many who see marriage in sacramental terms, this single statement is why the sacrament is a public one, rather than a private one. The key sacramental act here is the commitment of the two people to throw their lot in together and be a family; it does not need onlookers (or even a celebrant, as the individuals can exchange vows without one). But the public act is a request for the support of the community for the marriage and is the public participation in the sacrament. I think there is far too much treating of IETF documents like holy writ now, so I not only would not draw a parallel here, I actively discourage any one else from doing so. This, in other words, is pure digression. Don't say I didn't warn you. Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Randy, Nosey, aren't we? :-) If you must know, let's see: one grandfather worked in a machine shop during WWII, retired in the late 50s; the other was in the Army for WWI and a farmer, sawyer, moon-shiner and road worker the rest of his life (being a farmer isn't a living, it's a hobby). I doubt ASCII figured much into either of their lives. ASCII isn't good enough for me, but PDF is useful where the problem is really bad. Between them (counting PS as a variation of PDF - especially since I have to convert PS to PDF to read it) they are what there is. I don't even pretend to know what will be good for my own grandchildren because - so far - I don't even know that I will ever have any. My point in making a terse response was that all that was asked for was objections. Sometimes, reasons are neither asked for nor needed. I suspect that - now that you know the reasons - you might agree that this was one of those times... -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:21 PM -- To: Gray, Eric -- Cc: 'Sandy Wills'; Ken Raeburn; IETF General Discussion Mailing List -- Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: -- -- -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on -- the following -- -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my -- Grandfather, and it's -- -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please -- reply to this -- -- CfC if you object. -- -- IMO an objection should be required to also have an explanation. -- -- I object. -- -- Why? to which parts? the grandfather/grandchildren? -- -- -- -- ~Randy -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
* * -- * -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following * -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's * -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this * -- CfC if you object. * -- * Are we all in favor of Motherhood and Apple Pie? Well, mostly. No one (well, the IETF is a big tent, so that's probably too strong... almost no one) questions the desirability of a better format for publishing RFCs than pure ASCII text. This has been the subject of repeated discussions over the last 20 years. Will the same discussion be taking place 20 years from now? I, for one, certainly hope not. However, simply wishing we had a better solution is not enough. We need to have such a reasonable solution in hand before we agree to adopt it. We believe we want vendor neutrality, ubiquity, convenience, searchability, editability, etc.. The obvious, simple suggestions have all failed on one criterion or another, and ASCII has continued to be the best (if flawed) compromise. For many years, PS and PDF files have been allowed as secondary formats for RFCs. (You can find them by searching rfc-index.txt for the strings 'PS=' and 'PDF=', respectively). This provision does not handle things like state diagrams, which are presumably normative. In practice, creating the PS/PDF forms has been a major pain, because the documentswere created by the authors using a wide variety of different editors and tools. On the other hand, it does appear that the availability of ASCII support as a common denominator is decreasing over time. As has been observed, some software vendors seem to go out of their way to make simple ASCII hard to use. So there is increasing pressure to find a (truly) better solution. Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Randy.Dunlap wrote: On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: -- "I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this -- CfC if you object." IMO an objection should be required to also have an explanation. I object. Why? to which parts? the grandfather/grandchildren? OK, I object on the basis that ASCII diagrams are inadequate for our purposes. - Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: Randy, Nosey, aren't we? :-) Nah, I was interested in technical objections, not family history. [snippage] ASCII isn't good enough for me, but PDF is useful where the problem is really bad. Between them (counting PS as a variation of PDF - especially since I have to convert PS to PDF to read it) they are what there is. My point in making a terse response was that all that was asked for was objections. Sometimes, reasons are neither asked for nor needed. and sometimes they are... I suspect that - now that you know the reasons - you might agree that this was one of those times... Yes. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:21 PM -- To: Gray, Eric -- Cc: 'Sandy Wills'; Ken Raeburn; IETF General Discussion Mailing List -- Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: -- -- -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on -- the following -- -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my -- Grandfather, and it's -- -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please -- reply to this -- -- CfC if you object. -- -- IMO an objection should be required to also have an explanation. -- -- I object. -- -- Why? to which parts? the grandfather/grandchildren? -- ~Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sam, It is useful sometimes to differentiate those who have no stake in a particular issue from those who are not paying attention. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) it is not a very important distinction, and the IETF treats it this way all of the time. Maybe that's the right way to go. Maybe not. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Sam Hartman -- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:51 AM -- To: Spencer Dawkins -- Cc: IETF General Discussion Mailing List -- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- -- Spencer So... here's the problem. -- Personally, I object to the suggestion that my -- vote should be -- counted one way or another if I am silent. At most, -- it should -- be counted as no strong opinion. Or should I now start -- responding to all the Last Calls with I don't care -- about this, -- so please don't count me as supporting it? -- -- Spencer Our technology support for do we have consensus -- Spencer stinks. We ask for feedback to a mailing list, knowing -- Spencer that me, too postings are (and should be) discouraged -- Spencer in most shared e-mail environments. What we get is -- Spencer exactly what you described - postings from a non-random -- Spencer subset of participants, and then we try to figure out -- Spencer what the sampling error is, and in which -- direction, based -- Spencer on not a lot more information. There is a safety -- Spencer mechanism, because when we REALLY miscount we can be -- Spencer appealed, but we don't use it often, and it's really an -- Spencer expensive mechanism to use. -- -- I'm not sure I consider this very broken. If I'm reading a -- last call -- and I have opinions that differ from the way the discussion -- is going, -- I'm certainly going to speak up. It seems to work fairly well in -- practice at determining rough consensus when there is a rough -- consensus to be determined. It gives questionable results in cases -- where the results are questionable; I'm not sure this a bug. -- -- Spencer some way to let people say you know, I just -- don't care, -- Spencer that would help, too. -- -- And what do we do with those people anyway? How would it help me to -- know there are 30 people who don't care? -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
This On the other hand, it does appear that the availability of ASCII support as a common denominator is decreasing over time. As has been observed, some software vendors seem to go out of their way to make simple ASCII hard to use. So there is increasing pressure to find a (truly) better solution. This is the nut of the output representation problem for me. Most people who object to changing the output format talk about ASCII as if it always was the standard, and always will be the standard. If we were having this discussion 30 or 35 years ago, we would be discussing whether ASCII would take over EBCDIC or not. 35 years ago, it would not be clear that ASCII would survive. There was a holy war about that. ASCII did in fact take over from EBCDIC, but it wasn't always clear that it would. As Bob points out, we are, in fact, coming to the end of the line for ASCII. It's not in trouble this year, except that it's pretty damn tough to print it satisfactorily on the machines most of us have to work with. I suspect it will get increasingly difficult to create and edit in the not too distant future. That would make it a possible minimum common denominator archive format, but not a useful reading format. It's probably true that we can push this problem off another year, but maybe not, and definitely not for very much longer. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Bob, State Diagrams is a bad example. State machines can, and should always be, described definitively in text. State machine diagrams must be derived from textual description. Consequently, if we want to create a document with a pictorial representation, that document could contain normative references to a document containing a textual description and not the other way around. Being able to put both in the same document and have that document be authoritative would be a plus, provided we could be sure that everyone could read that document. Perhaps a better example might be complex functional block diagrams. Or mathematical expressions as someone else pointed out earlier. If your point is that there are things that are painfully hard to represent in text, obviously that is true - although we have had several people argue that this is a good thing, most of the time. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Bob Braden -- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:57 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- -- * -- * -- -- * -- I think we have reached substantial agreement -- on the following -- * -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my -- Grandfather, and it's -- * -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. -- Please reply to this -- * -- CfC if you object. -- * -- -- * -- -- Are we all in favor of Motherhood and Apple Pie? Well, mostly. -- -- No one (well, the IETF is a big tent, so that's probably -- too strong... -- almost no one) questions the desirability of a better format for -- publishing RFCs than pure ASCII text. This has been the subject of -- repeated discussions over the last 20 years. Will the same -- discussion -- be taking place 20 years from now? I, for one, certainly hope not. -- -- However, simply wishing we had a better solution is not enough. We -- need to have such a reasonable solution in hand before we agree to -- adopt it. We believe we want vendor neutrality, ubiquity, -- convenience, -- searchability, editability, etc.. The obvious, simple -- suggestions have -- all failed on one criterion or another, and ASCII has -- continued to be -- the best (if flawed) compromise. -- -- For many years, PS and PDF files have been allowed as -- secondary formats -- for RFCs. (You can find them by searching rfc-index.txt for the -- strings 'PS=' and 'PDF=', respectively). This provision does not -- handle things like state diagrams, which are presumably -- normative. In -- practice, creating the PS/PDF forms has been a major pain, -- because the -- documentswere created by the authors using a wide variety of -- different editors and tools. -- -- On the other hand, it does appear that the availability of ASCII -- support as a common denominator is decreasing over time. -- As has been -- observed, some software vendors seem to go out of their way to make -- simple ASCII hard to use. So there is increasing pressure to find -- a (truly) better solution. -- -- Bob Braden -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Gray, Eric wrote: It is useful sometimes to differentiate those who have no stake in a particular issue from those who are not paying attention. (rest of post snipped) Here I must become two-faced. Personally, I agree with you. Often, there are many shades of grey between the white and black binary choices. Often, being able to communicate those shades of grey will be essential to creating a usable compromise. Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the long-time IETF participants that they never take votes. All they do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and that reduces our options to simple binary choices. Thus, my attempt to create a binary method for asserting and testing a claim of concensus. I truly believe that we will have to go to some kind of multiple- choice voting system to reach decisions in these multi-valued cases. We have already seen a couple of examples on this list, where someone set up an opinion poll on the web, and later reported the results. Of course, in order for us to actually use them, they would have to be hosted by the IETF, or the winners of any poll would spend the rest of their lives fighting off charges of cheating. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Brian Rosen wrote (about the format issue): It's probably true that we can push this problem off another year, but maybe not, and definitely not for very much longer. I think that everyone here is aware of that, which is why we keep coming back to it, and will continue to until the agents of change win. I've only been following the IETF for a couple of years now, but this discussion seems to come closer to adopting a change every time I see it. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
For an organisation that, apparently, ought to be stymied and ineffectual because of its reliance on ASCII, the IETF appears to have had a remarkably productive run these past 20 years. Dare I suggest a certain organisational maturity is evidenced by the IETF's unwillingness to swing with every change in the winds of popular editing and presentation formats over these 20 years. gja ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Yaakov Stein wrote: However, the text objected to in this case argues that this process should be extended by a process of counting the people who don't publicly participate in the discussion (snip) We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary meeting, rather than by the number of yes votes on this list. Yes, even that is not optimal since there are people who prefer working in the terminal room or touring in the evenings, but it certainly seems to be a better way of finding out what MOST IETF participants want than only reading this list. Perhaps we can move past the discussion of what you originally proposed or did not propose. That does not seem very productive. And it must feel frustrating to get criticism for something that you did not propose. FWIW, I believe that what you suggest above for using the plenary is the best way to determine IETF consensus for some IETF-encompassing issues. (With a follow-up on this list of course, but unless that generates hundreds of responses, its unlikely to make a difference to what the room thought. And there should be some preparation in the list prior to the meeting, like announcing that people should read these drafts and that certain questions are going to be asked.) --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Title: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus" Yaakov, Here's the text that says "all that"... "It is much more likely to hear from the veryvocal people who are opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of change." The clear implication here is that we could choose to regard the 20 expressed 'nays', evenstrong nays, as atypical among the silent majority - if that assumption suits our purpose. Or, we could assume the reverse... The current process requires weighing of voices, not weighing of the supposed opinions of the silent. -- Eric From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:25 PMTo: Gray, Eric; Brian E CarpenterCc: ietf@ietf.orgSubject: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus" However, the text objected to in this case argues thatthis process should be extended by a process of counting thepeople who don't publicly participate in the discussion, eitherway, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side ofthe argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.Wow, did we say all that? All we are saying is that for the issue we are discussing there is no WG. The only list that is open to its discussion is the general list, where there is no support. However, quite a large number of people who actively participate inIETF WGs (people who are interested in working on technical topics, but not on the internal workings of the IETF) who want the process changed. We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary meeting, rather than by the number of yes votes on this list. Yes, even that is not optimal since there are people who prefer working in the terminal room or touring in the evenings, but it certainly seems to be a better way of finding out what MOST IETF participants want than only reading this list. I fail to see how this is equivalent to allowing authors or chairs to decide for themselves what should be done. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Gray, Eric wrote: It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of change. While I can't speak for everyone else, this seems correct to me. Do I have anything useful or enteresting to add? and Do I think that my input will change the output? must both evaluate to Yes before I post to any discussion. I occasionally post for humor or interest, but generally I follow the discussion and stay out of it unless I believe it to be going badly awry. To be blunt, do we want every question to be answered by several thousand AOL Me too's? The silent masses are silent because they don't have anything useful to add, and believe that an endless stream of agreements would do nothing useful except test our bandwidth. We do, on the other hand, chime in when necessary. So, it is good and right and fair to assume that a public question with a default answer has concensus, if the only response is a minor negative one. I, and I believe many others, will simply move on to the next post when we see the question, if we agree with the default answer. A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 readers, and we post the question Will the sun rise tomorrow? We think yes. then we can expect a small number of disagreements, a small number of arguments from readers who didn't understand the question, a small number of AOL's, a small number of Of course, you twit! Why are you wasting our time with this? and nothing else. The vast majority of the readers will not reply, because they agree with the default answer, and they have other things to do. If there is a reader who disagrees in his mind, but is constrained by cultural conditioning or natural manners from speaking out, how are we supposed to coax his better way from this reader? We have already posited that he/she/it won't speak up. I submit that the IETF culture should, by policy, assume that anyone subscribed to an IETF list will speak out on any question if he/she/it thinks it right. The current process requires weighing of voices, not weighing of the supposed opinions of the silent. Yes, _but_ anyone who agrees will not argue. You will only get argument from those who disagree with the post. Unless you want to change the culture here to require an answer from every reader, on every question, thus adding significantly to our daily workload. I'd rather not. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Thus spake Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gray, Eric wrote: It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of change. While I can't speak for everyone else, this seems correct to me. Do I have anything useful or enteresting to add? and Do I think that my input will change the output? must both evaluate to Yes before I post to any discussion. I occasionally post for humor or interest, but generally I follow the discussion and stay out of it unless I believe it to be going badly awry. I think this thread long ago passed into badly awry, hence the volume of responses. The current process requires weighing of voices, not weighing of the supposed opinions of the silent. Yes, _but_ anyone who agrees will not argue. You will only get argument from those who disagree with the post. Unless you want to change the culture here to require an answer from every reader, on every question, thus adding significantly to our daily workload. I'd rather not. Very true for the original post, but once one person (or, in the instant case, a couple dozen) has argued with the OP, there is no way to determine which side the silent majority agrees with. It is possible that there are thousands of people agree with Yakov but have cultural prohibitions on backing him, or it could be that there are thousands that don't agree but have no new points to add -- or both. All we can measure are the people who do speak up. Right now it looks like there is a very strong consensus against MS Word as an output format, a weaker one against it as an input format, and no real consensus yet about other options like HTML, OpenDoc, PDF/A, etc. IMHO, the normative output text should remain the ASCII version, perhaps with UTF-8 to allow authors to add a native rendering of their name. Any other output versions should be optional and explicitly non-normative. Input forms should remain the same as today plus optional UTF-8. I think that's about as progressive as we'll likely build consensus for any time soon. The bad artwork that this saddles us with is, IMHO, a feature and not a bug. S Stephen SprunkStupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them. --Aaron Sorkin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy, What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However, the implication in the wording is that people disagreeing with a proposal will post and people disagreeing with them will not. This is the case - as you suggest - when there is a clear default outcome. In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change is not the default outcome in most human organizations. That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go with a change as there are people prepared to make changes. Consequently, it is at least as valid to assume that - particularly when a proposal represents a departure from status quo - that people may not be responding because they agree with the _objections_ already made and _also_ do not want to add to the general hub-bub. Consequently, if we see 10-20 people posting in favor of a _specific_ proposal and similar numbers posting against that same _specific_ proposal, then it is out of line for us to assume that any particular opinion is indicated by silence. Note that it is _very_ important to distinguish support for a particular change from support for the idea that some change is required. For example, if you have well over 100 people who all agree that change is required, and only 20 who argue that no change is required, you have to evaluate the agreement for a specific change (or at least a specific change direction) rather than a general discontent with status quo. If no more than 5 or 10 people agree to a specific proposal, then the net effect is a consensus for the status quo (better the devil you know). As one of the people arguing for status quo, I can tell you that it is not that I am happy with it. It is because I do not see a reasonably well supported alternative to status quo being proposed. In fact, a big part of the discussion right now stems from the fact that a lot of people have not really understood exactly what the status quo is. People who believe that they cannot submit an ID containing complex graphics in some form other than text, clearly do not realize that this is not the case. I like the quote about coffee, by the way... -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: Sandy Wills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:48 PM -- To: Gray, Eric -- Cc: 'Yaakov Stein'; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- Gray, Eric wrote: -- -- It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal -- people who are -- opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants -- on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even -- strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of -- change. -- -- While I can't speak for everyone else, this seems correct -- to me. Do I -- have anything useful or enteresting to add? and Do I -- think that my -- input will change the output? must both evaluate to Yes -- before I post -- to any discussion. I occasionally post for humor or interest, but -- generally I follow the discussion and stay out of it unless -- I believe it -- to be going badly awry. -- --To be blunt, do we want every question to be answered by several -- thousand AOL Me too's? The silent masses are silent because they -- don't have anything useful to add, and believe that an -- endless stream of -- agreements would do nothing useful except test our bandwidth. -- --We do, on the other hand, chime in when necessary. So, -- it is good -- and right and fair to assume that a public question -- with a default -- answer has concensus, if the only response is a minor -- negative one. I, -- and I believe many others, will simply move on to the next -- post when we -- see the question, if we agree with the default answer. -- --A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 -- readers, and we -- post the question -- --Will the sun rise tomorrow? We think yes. -- -- then we can expect a small number of disagreements, a -- small number of -- arguments from readers who didn't understand the question, a small -- number of AOL's, a small number of Of course, you twit! -- Why are you -- wasting our time with this? and nothing else. The vast -- majority of the -- readers will not reply, because they agree with the default -- answer, and -- they have other things to do. --If there is a reader who disagrees in his mind, but is -- constrained by -- cultural conditioning or natural manners from speaking out, -- how are we -- supposed to coax his better way from this reader? We -- have already -- posited that he/she/it won't speak up. --I submit that the IETF culture should, by policy, assume -- that anyone -- subscribed to an IETF list will speak out on any question -- if he/she/it -- thinks it right. -- -- The current process requires weighing
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Gray, Eric wrote: Sandy, In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change is not the default outcome in most human organizations. That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go with a change as there are people prepared to make changes. I think that there is also a very strong element of emotional attachment to any system or solution, from those people who had a hand in creating it (Certainly, I'm just as guilty of this as the next guy!). Any job is harder if you have to change your tools every time you get used to them. It's also true that some people will object to anything in front of them, simply because it was done by someone else. We also have the religious responses, both pro and con, where someone either approves (or disapproves) of it simply because of the source. We've all seen It's gotta be good, Jon Postel wrote it, as well as I'll cut my wrists before I use MS software It appears that, if we want to judge solution-quality by mob volume, we need to find some way to separate the emotional responses from the reasoned responses. Unfortunately, I don't have one handy. Note that it is _very_ important to distinguish support for a particular change from support for the idea that some change is required. For example, if you have well over 100 people who all agree that change is required, and only 20 who argue that no change is required, you have to evaluate the agreement for a specific change (or at least a specific change direction) rather than a general discontent with status quo. If no more than 5 or 10 people agree to a specific proposal, then the net effect is a consensus for the status quo (better the devil you know). As one of the people arguing for status quo, I can tell you that it is not that I am happy with it. It is because I do not see a reasonably well supported alternative to status quo being proposed. ...And we are back to what has been said many times already. Do we want to change? Answer yes/no and What do we want to change to? are _not_ completely separable. You admit that you aren't happy about the status quo, but will still answer No to the first question because you don't trust us as a community to come up with a sane answer to the second question. The only quick and easy solution I see would be a multiple-choice question, perhaps on a web site, with options like: A) The world is perfect. Change nothing. B) I hate our system, but don't trust you bozos. Change nothing. C) Change to cunieform-and-clay, for everything. D) Change to marble for ID submission, and MS Word '95 for RFC publication. etc, etc, etc. I choose to _NOT_ volunteer to write and host this website. I like the quote about coffee, by the way... Thanks! While it's not original with me, I certainly still remember the pain involved with the source Unable to locate COMMAND.COM - Processor halted -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy, My point - as may be clearer in other posts - is that the first question do we want change is a no-op at best. Change is natural and inevitable whether we want it or not. The first useful question is - paraphrasing what Brian said - what do we need that we do not already have? All of us have needs that are not satisfied by what we have - hence the inevitability of change. But it is not useful, nor realistic, for any of us to assume that everyone else is going to drop what they're doing to help us satisfy our individual needs. So the question becomes Is there a common subset of our collective individual needs that a large subset of affected people agree on, that cannot be satisfied by what we have now? IMO, that is the question we keep coming back to... -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: Sandy Wills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:34 PM -- To: Gray, Eric -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- Gray, Eric wrote: -- -- Sandy, -- --In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change -- is not the default outcome in most human organizations. -- That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion -- over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go -- with a change as there are people prepared to make changes. -- -- I think that there is also a very strong element of emotional -- attachment to any system or solution, from those people who -- had a hand -- in creating it (Certainly, I'm just as guilty of this as -- the next guy!). -- Any job is harder if you have to change your tools every -- time you get -- used to them. -- It's also true that some people will object to anything -- in front of -- them, simply because it was done by someone else. -- We also have the religious responses, both pro and con, where -- someone either approves (or disapproves) of it simply -- because of the -- source. We've all seen It's gotta be good, Jon Postel -- wrote it, as -- well as I'll cut my wrists before I use MS software -- -- It appears that, if we want to judge solution-quality -- by mob volume, -- we need to find some way to separate the emotional -- responses from the -- reasoned responses. Unfortunately, I don't have one handy. -- --Note that it is _very_ important to distinguish support -- for a particular change from support for the idea that some -- change is required. For example, if you have well over 100 -- people who all agree that change is required, and only 20 who -- argue that no change is required, you have to evaluate the -- agreement for a specific change (or at least a specific change -- direction) rather than a general discontent with status quo. -- If no more than 5 or 10 people agree to a specific proposal, -- then the net effect is a consensus for the status quo (better -- the devil you know). -- --As one of the people arguing for status quo, I can tell -- you that it is not that I am happy with it. It is because I -- do not see a reasonably well supported alternative to status -- quo being proposed. -- -- ...And we are back to what has been said many times -- already. Do we -- want to change? Answer yes/no and What do we want to -- change to? are -- _not_ completely separable. You admit that you aren't -- happy about the -- status quo, but will still answer No to the first -- question because you -- don't trust us as a community to come up with a sane answer to the -- second question. -- -- The only quick and easy solution I see would be a -- multiple-choice -- question, perhaps on a web site, with options like: -- --A) The world is perfect. Change nothing. --B) I hate our system, but don't trust you bozos. Change nothing. --C) Change to cunieform-and-clay, for everything. --D) Change to marble for ID submission, and MS Word '95 for RFC -- publication. --etc, etc, etc. -- --I choose to _NOT_ volunteer to write and host this website. -- -- --I like the quote about coffee, by the way... -- -- Thanks! While it's not original with me, I certainly still -- remember the -- pain involved with the source Unable to locate COMMAND.COM -- - Processor -- halted -- -- -- -- Unable to locate coffee. -- Operator halted. -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy Wills wrote: [..] A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 readers, and we post the question Will the sun rise tomorrow? We think yes. Then you invite ridicule upon anyone who says no. However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word? and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few minutes to hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one quick glance, see two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against. With which one does the silent majority agree? cheers, gja ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
grenville armitage wrote: However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word? and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few minutes to hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one quick glance, see two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against. With which one does the silent majority agree? Indeterminate, of course. This is why, as so many people have pointed out time time again, if concensus is to be requested or claimed, propositions on this list a) MUST be kept simple, and b) MUST include a default. What you gave us is an example of a discussion, which can include more than one topic, including more than one possible answer. This should not be confused with, or used as justification for, a claim of concensus. Eventually, we will all be exhausted by this interminal discussion, and someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with this job) will post a simple statement and ask if the statement has concensus. No multiple choice, no discussion, just statement. I hope it happens soon... The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text format, plus WordStar version 2.0 of 4/1/1987. Henceforth, all posters suggesting MS Word will be drug from their homes and stoned in the street. People who agree will mumble yeah under their breath and otherwise ignore the post. People who disagree will reply on the list. After two weeks, someone will compare the size of the subscriber list to the number of negative replies, and we'll all start gathering rocks together. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy Wills wrote: grenville armitage wrote: However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word? and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few minutes to hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one quick glance, see two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against. With which one does the silent majority agree? Indeterminate, of course. This is why, as so many people have pointed out time time again, if concensus is to be requested or claimed, propositions on this list a) MUST be kept simple, and b) MUST include a default. My example was (a) simple, and (b) had a default. What you gave us is an example of a discussion, What I demonstrated is that any posed question on a mailing list will, if it solicits replies taking positions for or against, lead to an indeterminate state when interpreted through logic that states the silent majority agrees with the position stated on the mailing list. Every subsequent response to the 'first' question will itself stake out a position, and you have no right to assume the 'majority' care more about the 'first post' of the question than the followups. cheers, gja ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words) grenville armitage wrote: Sandy Wills wrote: grenville armitage wrote: However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word? A simple yes/no question, with no default given by the poster. Those are your words, not mine. and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. This is, in your example, the first choice available, since the original question had no default/assumed answer. Over the next few minutes to hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one quick glance, see two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against. Thus we have a discussion With which one does the silent majority agree? Indeterminate, of course. This is why, as so many people have pointed out time time again, if concensus is to be requested or claimed, propositions on this list a) MUST be kept simple, and b) MUST include a default. My example was (a) simple, and (b) had a default. Please read your words again. Your example was an open question, with no default, leading to a discussion. Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. Okay, maybe that's because we don't use the same definitions for the words and phrases we are passing back and forth. You keep describing our discussions, and I agree that, yep, that's the way our discussions work. I keep trying to point out that this is different from how we call for concensus, and you keep going back to but that's not how our discussions work. You're right, because a discussion is _different_ from a call for concensus (henceforth CfC), and we will never be able to REACH a concensus if you can't tell the difference. (and I think that this confusion is one of the IETF's big problems) For the sake of this discussion, here are a couple of working definitions. Please let me know if you see a problem with them: A Discussion has many speakers, many viewpoints, many issues, many proposed solutions, and, well, discussion about them all, lasting for (sometimes) a long time. A CfC usually follows a Discussion and has ONE (count 'em) statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or decision, asking for agreement or disagreement. It may or may not be bundled with justifying data or logic, as long as the readers can find the CfC. This CfC is followed by a variable number of replies agreeing or disagreeing with the statement. Once that is done, the group can take the results of that CfC and move forward, with either another discussion, or a further CfC, as seems useful. If your example had been a _statement_ We should move to MSWord, then that would have worked for a CfC. (I believe that such a CfC would collect a large number of Nos, with many of them giving reasons.) However, wording it as a question Should we... is asking for a discussion, not a CfC. And we cannot ever reach a concensus if we can't tell the two apart. For the record, I believe that the Chair should issue a CfC on We should allow non-ASCII graphics to accompany IDs and RFCs. If, and only if, that CfC passes, we should explore what format those graphics might be. -- Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy Wills wrote: someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with this job) will post a simple statement and ask if the statement has concensus. No multiple choice, no discussion, just statement. I hope it happens soon... The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text format, plus WordStar version 2.0 of 4/1/1987. Henceforth, all posters suggesting MS Word will be drug from their homes and stoned in the street. [...] and we'll all start gathering rocks together. Without an opportunity to sell fake beards for this episode in the Life of Brian the proposal could meet some resistance ;-) Not new, see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/13554 or the clear http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/13658 Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Sandy Wills wrote: [..] A CfC usually follows a Discussion and has ONE (count 'em) statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or decision, asking for agreement or disagreement. ...asking for agreement or disagreement. If it quacks like a question... cheers, gja ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi - In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt section 3 says: | Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider | declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number | of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. I object to this text, as it might (mis)lead the reader into thinking that the methods for declaring consensus were being modified, particularly if this document somehow became a BCP. To deal with this issue, I suggest the removal of the following material from section 3: Agree. If the authors actually wish to propose a change to the way consensus is determined in the IETF, then they should do so in a separate document. Naturally, like any process change in any organization, such a change would have to be made under the _existing_ process before it could take effect. Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough consensus is to leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs (if relevant) and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is significant. That's not going to change any time soon, and certainly not as a side effect. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough consensus is to leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs (if relevant) and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is significant. That is what were asking for in this case. Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Brian, Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has very specific relevance in this case. Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few nay-sayers. However, the text objected to in this case argues that this process should be extended by a process of counting the people who don't publicly participate in the discussion, either way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose. If we suppose that this might be the ongoing model for determining consensus, it will never be necessary for anyone other than the authors, WG chairs and IESG to agree on some choice to declare consensus - even if the proposal is the most ghastly nonsense to ever see the light of day - since it will always be the case that the majority of people lurking on the mailing list will not actively participate in list discussion. The text argues for this extreme interpretation of the current process - where the proponents of an idea consist almost entirely of its authors, and they need only get the IESG behind it to make it happen. I've seen this done once before, where a WG chair and AD jointly declared consensus against a continuous stream of objections. It wasn't pretty then, and it wouldn't be pretty now. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:02 AM -- To: Jeffrey Hutzelman -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus -- -- Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: -- -- -- On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- Hi - -- -- In -- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt -- section 3 says: -- -- | Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG -- carefully consider -- | declaring consensus in support of the change even if -- a large number -- | of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. -- -- I object to this text, as it might (mis)lead the reader -- into thinking -- that the methods for declaring consensus were being modified, -- particularly -- if this document somehow became a BCP. To deal with -- this issue, I -- suggest -- the removal of the following material from section 3: -- -- -- Agree. If the authors actually wish to propose a change -- to the way -- consensus is determined in the IETF, then they should do so in a -- separate document. Naturally, like any process change in any -- organization, such a change would have to be made under -- the _existing_ -- process before it could take effect. -- -- Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough -- consensus is to -- leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs -- (if relevant) -- and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is -- significant. -- That's not going to change any time soon, and certainly not -- as a side effect. -- -- Brian -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
Brian, Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has very specific relevance in this case. Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few nay-sayers. However, the text objected to in this case argues that this process should be extended by a process of counting the people who don't publicly participate in the discussion, either way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose. ... and this was what concerned me, too. It's been a couple of years, but we had some discussions are part of the IETF Problem Statement about people who aren't comfortable commenting in public on technical issues for a variety of reasons (including, but not limited to, cultural reasons). The context at that time was people who DO comment - just not on public mailing lists. The guidance we ended up with was that we don't know how to make commenting, just not publically part of the consensus determination. In this context, the question is about the IETF toolset, not about protocol specifics, but since we insist on using the protocol specification/standardization BCPs for process discussions, I'm really concerned about asking the IESG to violate those BCPs in determining consensus on a process question. It's a slippery slope to We know what consensus is on this protocol question, even if the people who agree don't post... Spencer Spencer Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Title: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus However, the text objected to in this case argues thatthis process should be extended by a process of counting thepeople who don't publicly participate in the discussion, eitherway, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side ofthe argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.Wow, did we say all that? All we are saying is that for the issue we are discussing there is no WG. The only list that is open to its discussion is the general list, where there is no support. However, quite a large number of people who actively participate inIETF WGs (people who are interested in working on technical topics, but not on the internal workings of the IETF) who want the process changed. We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary meeting, rather than by the number of yes votes on this list. Yes, even that is not optimal since there are people who prefer working in the terminal room or touring in the evenings, but it certainly seems to be a better way of finding out what MOST IETF participants want than only reading this list. I fail to see how this is equivalent to allowing authors or chairs to decide for themselves what should be done. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
objection to proposed change to consensus
Hi - In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt section 3 says: | Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider | declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number | of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. I object to this text, as it might (mis)lead the reader into thinking that the methods for declaring consensus were being modified, particularly if this document somehow became a BCP. To deal with this issue, I suggest the removal of the following material from section 3: | Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider | declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number | of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. In that regard, | Henrik Levkowetz posted the following comment | (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg39170.html): | | Following the debate from the sideline till now, it's clear to me | that there are at least a few people who are adamantly against | change. I'm not at all convinced that a large majority feels this | way. A poll might reveal more than the relative proportions of | highly engaged people voicing their views here. | | Judging consensus through a poll is sometimes difficult. There is a | vast silent majority that would support the proposed additional | formats, or at least not oppose them, but will not express their | opinion on the list. It is much more likely to hear from the very | vocal people who are opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s | of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed | 'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in | favor of change. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi - In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt section 3 says: | Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider | declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number | of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. I object to this text, as it might (mis)lead the reader into thinking that the methods for declaring consensus were being modified, particularly if this document somehow became a BCP. To deal with this issue, I suggest the removal of the following material from section 3: Agree. If the authors actually wish to propose a change to the way consensus is determined in the IETF, then they should do so in a separate document. Naturally, like any process change in any organization, such a change would have to be made under the _existing_ process before it could take effect. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
