A small comment in-line.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > >> The abstract says: >> >> The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work >> through a consensus process, taking into account the different views >> among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on >> technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be >> run by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in >> rituals >> > > > As I noted in my review of the draft, the document has a core flaw in > its sense of history. It has invented an interpretation of "rough > consensus" that was not part of its original formulation. > > I consider the current focus on reconciling minority views to be quite an > excellent enhancement to that original interpretation, but it really is an > addition. In classic IETF fashion, documenting that enhancement flows from > common -- though not universal -- IETF practice that has emerged, and it > likely to produce better consistency to the current, ad hoc behavior. But > we need to stop asserting the meaning of "rough consensus" to have always > or obviously included this. > > Part of the confusion about the history is over-interpreting the context > the phrase was used. Dave Clark drew a contrast against 'voting'. Voting > is a mechanical counting process, with formal lines of distinction, whether > a simple model like 51% or 67%, or the like, or something more complex. > But it's based on a strict counting of votes and a strict model for using > them. > > By contrast, the phrase "rough consensus" simply meant that there is > massive support, and leaves the determination of 'massive' to subjective > processes. If something has massive support, it is likely to get > implemented, deployed and used. If it doesn't, the formalities of a > voting mechanism won't help it succeed in the marketplace. The idea that > voting will suffice for this concern by simply moving the thresh hold to > some sort of super-majority imposes an artificial precision; the idea > behind rough consensus is the subject sense that there is obviously > 'enough' support. > > I believe the IETF has only two documents that talk about the meaning of > rough consensus. In addition to the two you cite, RFC 3929 does, primarily in Section 2 but also 3.3 and a few other places. As the author of that Experimental RFC, I will note that I am not aware of any case in which any of its proposals has been carried out, though it has been discussed as a possibility more than once. The first thing most readers note is that using one of its methods does not get you out of building consensus--it requires you to build consensus for an alternate approach when consensus on a technical matter cannot be reached by the baseline process (and it is clear that it is not trying to change the baseline). regards, Ted
