On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> There's also a common tendency of some kinds of groups to categorically
>> dismiss the opinions of those that they see as outliers, even to the point
>> of diminishing their numbers. If one of those objecting happens to defend
>> his viewpoi
On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
>>> non-IETF context, I came upon a reference to an article
On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
>> non-IETF context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007
>> with the catchy title "Inferring th
The process seems to be today what I call "Consensus by Osmosis."
People get tired of the highly mixed discipline subjective
philosophies, many times subject to personal agendas, and conflict of
interest, many get shouted out even to the extent of ignorance at the
suggestion of key cogs. So eve
On 07/13/2011 11:00, Fred Baker wrote:
> To my mind, it's not a matter of voting (how many people think A, how many
> people think B, ...) and not a matter of volume (which would accept a
> filibuster as a showstopper). It's a question of the preponderance of opinion
> ("agreement, harmony, conc
On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
> non-IETF context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007
> with the catchy title "Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its
> Familiarity:
On 7/12/2011 4:03 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
think there is an important message there for the IETF, because the
establishment of consensus is not by any objective measure and this
science says that subjective measures can be influe
The real issue is proving the consensus was reasonable after the
On 13 July 2011 08:51, Martin Rex wrote:
> Trying to gauge "(rough) consensus" by counting voiced opinions when an
> issue has not been reliably determined to be non-technical and
> non-procedural _is_ inappropriate.
Note that the point of the paper is saying that people "feel" that
there is a wi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus.
That issue turns up most of the time in inappropriate situations.
I regularly see folks _counting_ opinions when issues have been raised
instead of actually resolving the issues. As previously said,
the most
Brian,
I repeat, you are right.
Your statement might receive even full consensus ;-)
Regards,
Géza
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
> non-IETF
> contex
Hi,
We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
non-IETF
context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007 with the
catchy title
"Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive
Voice Can
Sound Like a Chorus". Here's an extr
11 matches
Mail list logo
