Gen-ART Review of draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-11 Thread Russ Housley
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 Reviewer: Ru

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-11 Thread t . p .
A minor point inline, rest snipped Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Pete Resnick" To: Cc: "IETF Discussion" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:48 PM > Finally back to this original review. > > On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > >>Note that this portrays rough con

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-10 Thread Pete Resnick
Finally back to this original review. On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: In terms of philosophy and desirable practice, the draft discusses an extremely appealing model and generally explains its nature and practice well. However the draft tends to confuse what is (or has been) with

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-08 Thread Yoav Nir
On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: >> dcroc...@bbiw.net >>> >>> From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't >>> enough; it's worth making that explicit. >> >> To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about ma

RE: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-08 Thread Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
pher (UK) Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; Pete Resnick; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 --! WARNING ! -- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Keep this in mind if you

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-07 Thread Martin Rex
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > dcroc...@bbiw.net >> >> From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't >> enough; it's worth making that explicit. > > To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about making clear, > British and American English differ here. If

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-07 Thread Jaap Akkerhuis
To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about making clear, British and American English differ here. If three proposals (not the most common case, I agree, but it can happen) have 45%, 35% and 20% of the votes, the first of these has a majority, sometimes emphasis

RE: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-07 Thread Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
dcroc...@bbiw.net > a "majority rule-> a "simple majority rule" > Majorities come in different forms or degrees and the fact that 'rough > consensus' is often taken to mean 67% or 75%, as a rule of thumb can > make this confusing. > From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 5

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-06 Thread Melinda Shore
On 10/6/13 4:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 07/10/2013, at 11:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> 1. in a natural state; without decoration or other treatment. "a >> diamond in the rough" >> 2. in difficulties. "even before the recession hit, the project was >> in the rough" > I think he's using it

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-06 Thread Mark Nottingham
On 07/10/2013, at 11:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Now, a conclusion of having only rough consensus relies heavily on >> the good judgement of the consensus caller. The group must truly >> consider and weigh an issue before the objection can be dismissed as >> being "in the rough". The

Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

2013-10-06 Thread Dave Crocker
Review Title:On Consensus and Humming in the IETF draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 Reviewer: D. Crocker Reivew data: 6 Oct 2013 Summary: The draft discusses IETF processes for making group decisions, especially in the face of disagreement. As the draft notes, th