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
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
