Consensus can be achieved in two ways The first is that everyone understands the issues in the same way and are agreed on a common approach.
The second is that people would prefer not to face unfortunate facts and so they agree to ignore them and get the squeaky wheels to shut up. Now we could continue to discuss how the sky might fall in if we admit that the IETF process emperor has no clothes, but that seems a somewhat unproductive use of everyone's time. On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.sh...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 10/29/10 5:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not >> following? >> > > I think there's a sentimental attachment to it. That said, > I suppose if I were in your position I'd be asking myself > why I'm still whacking away at the same stuff, still being > combative, still failing to build anything remotely > resembling consensus, and yet I'm not changing my own behavior that > not only doesn't seem to be working at all but has been suggested > to constitute a DOS attack on at least one working group. > > If you can figure that one out maybe you'll have a better > handle on why other people aren't modifying their approaches > to problems, either. > > Melinda > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
