Deciding between two choices

[Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com]

When you have competing protocols for a problem the chairs always
have to make tough decisions sometimes. Obviously you cannot
make everyone happy. So flipping a coin sometimes simply to make
progress instead of being bogged down in extended discussions is
justified (IMO), especially when the differences are philosophical
in nature and no great advantage can be perceived in selecting one
over the other. I believe the chairs have a great deal of responsibility
in making such decisions and communicating it effectively with the WG.
Of course not everyone is bound to be happy... But the WG is not =
chartered
to keep all its constituents happy :)


>=20
> > [...] it's a decision, but [...]
> > significant unhappiness [...]
>=20
> That's maybe why we call it "rough consensus" and not "eternal bliss".
>=20
> As a remote bystander, I was pleasantly surprised how smooth this=20
> process was.
>=20
> Remember the Megaco coin...
>=20
> (For those who weren't there -- the text vs. binary decision=20
> in megaco=20
> was done literally by flipping a coin.
> Significant expressions of unhappiness later caused the chair to back=20
> off from this decision, and then both variants were put in=20
> the standard.
> For no discernible technical reason whatsoever.
> *That* makes me unhappy.)
>=20
> We need to remember to spend less time on the inconsequential=20
> decisions=20
> that still have to be made.
> ((Solution space: Add coins to 2026bis (or use an RFC2777=20
> style source=20
> of verifiable randomness, if that makes people happier).))
>=20
> We also maybe need to get more scientific in the decisions=20
> that do have=20
> consequences.
> ((Compare the various candidate selection processes in ITU and IEEE.))
> That approach certainly helped making some of the decisions in ROHC.
>=20
> Gruesse, Carsten
>=20
>=20