>>>>> "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