RE: Binary Choices?
Ted,
I think we disagree on fine points and agree on the bigger
points.
As Melinda Shore aptly put it ('objection to proposed change
to consensus' on Saturday, 1/7/2006, at 10:15 AM Eastern Time):
'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.'
While the point at which a question can be asked that is likely to
engender consensus is not always going to be quite this binary, it
is often the case that people will not try to 'call' for consensus
until there are no more than three choices - and usually it will be
when there are no more than two.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:43 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; Sandy Wills; IETF General Discussion Mailing List
-- Subject: Re: Binary Choices?
--
-- On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 12:57:56PM -0500, Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- Usually, before you can actually seek consensus, you must have an
-- essentially binary choice. It is hard enough to reach consensus
-- on simple choices without turning up the process noise by having a
-- plethora of possible choices.
--
--
-- I disagree here. The process of seeking consensus means you have to
-- sort *through* the plethora of possible choices, and see which ones
-- meets the needs and requirements of the stakeholder. If you have a
-- binary choice, all you can really do is force a vote. So
-- hopefully by
-- the time that you come up to your last two choices, they hopefully
-- aren't binary in the sense of 0 and 1 being diametric opposites.
-- Hopefully the two or three final choices are pretty closely
-- except for
-- a few minor details (and then we end up spending huge amount of time
-- arguing over those tiny details :-)
--
-- - Ted
--
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Binary Choices?
Sandy == Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sandy 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. Sandy (rest of post snipped) Sandy Here I must become two-faced. Sandy Personally, I agree with you. Often, there are many Sandy shades of grey between the white and black binary choices. Sandy Often, being able to communicate those shades of grey will Sandy be essential to creating a usable compromise. Agreed. Sandy Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma Sandy among the long-time IETF participants that they never take Sandy votes. All they do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and Sandy that reduces our options to simple binary choices. I'm very confused here; as far as I can tell judging consensus works much better with things in the middle than any sort of votes. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Binary Choices?
Sam/Sandy, See below... -- Eric --- [SNIP] --- -- Sandy Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma -- Sandy among the long-time IETF participants that they never take -- Sandy votes. All they do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and -- Sandy that reduces our options to simple binary choices. -- -- I'm very confused here; as far as I can tell judging consensus works -- much better with things in the middle than any sort of votes. Ultimately, you're both right. Usually, before you can actually seek consensus, you must have an essentially binary choice. It is hard enough to reach consensus on simple choices without turning up the process noise by having a plethora of possible choices. However, the process of seeking consensus does tend to solicit the reasons and feelings involved in making choices and this can lead to solution searches in the gray-areas between proposals. -- -- --Sam -- -- -- ___ -- 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: Binary Choices?
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 12:57:56PM -0500, Gray, Eric wrote: Usually, before you can actually seek consensus, you must have an essentially binary choice. It is hard enough to reach consensus on simple choices without turning up the process noise by having a plethora of possible choices. I disagree here. The process of seeking consensus means you have to sort *through* the plethora of possible choices, and see which ones meets the needs and requirements of the stakeholder. If you have a binary choice, all you can really do is force a vote. So hopefully by the time that you come up to your last two choices, they hopefully aren't binary in the sense of 0 and 1 being diametric opposites. Hopefully the two or three final choices are pretty closely except for a few minor details (and then we end up spending huge amount of time arguing over those tiny details :-) - Ted ___ 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
