rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")

[James Seng]

I repeat: You declare it fails even before you put it to a test.

This line of argument is not conviencing.

-James Seng

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> And who hears the appeal? - A committee where the individual responsible for
> the abuses has audience rights and I do not.
> 
> Can you see why I might not have much confidence in that as a process?
> 
> Can you see why I might not want to take a step which is most likely to
> result in the IESG simply ratifying the chair's abuses so that they can
> continue to refuse to believe that there is a PROBLEM?
> 
> 
> I have raised my complaints concerning the closed DNS directorate process
> with many IESG members including the IETF chair. I was not the only person
> to complain. Paul Vixie called for the chair to resign. The only result was
> they had those DNS Directorate black helicopter hats made. 
> 
> These were a bit funnier until Derek Attkins admitted that he had discovered
> that he had been booted out of the directorate and not even been told this
> had happened. If the hats had had a picture of someone being dropped
> overboard they would have been much more accurate.
> 
> 
> If we are going to have a discussion about PROBLEM then discussion of
> specific failures of the process would seem to be a good starting point.
> 
> If we are ever going to get to a SOLUTION it would be good to start hearing
> that others accept that I am not the only person making the complaint about
> autocratic top down proceedures and that they are having a widespread
> effect.
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:44 PM
>>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>>Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>>Subject: Re: rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")
>>
>>
>>Phill, you seem to be extrapolating from one case to a general
>>statement that many of us would disagree with.
>>
>>In terms of the general determination of rough consensus, I would
>>add to the definition in 2418, which is entirely workable in my
>>experience, that if 20 people "vote" the same way, but the WG chair
>>knows that they all work for the same organization or for associated 
>>organizations, those 20 "votes" are likely to be heavily discounted
>>in evaluating the RFC 2418 criteria. That's why we give discretion
>>to the WG chairs, and it's because we give them discretion that
>>there is an appeal mechanism *which no AD can block*.
>>
>>   Brian
>>
>>"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote:
>>
>>>>But please spare a thought for the wg chairs too. They are in
>>>>this "damn if you do, damn if you dont" position...
>>>
>>>The chair was the person who created the situation. There would
>>>have been no debate at all if he had not manipulated the process
>>>repeatedly.
>>>
>>>If the chair in question had not also been on the IESG I suspect
>>>that he would not have been allowed to behave in the partisan
>>>manner he did.
>>>
>>>IETF - not open, not inclusive, not relevant.
>>>
>>>                Phill
>>
> 
>