suggestions (voting)

Leif Johansson leifj@it.su.se
Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:27:36 +0100


> the problem statement for this one is should be reformulated:
>  Waiting for IETF meetings to identify/reach concensus takes too much time.
> Judging concensus
> based on mailing list comments does not usually show the silent majority
> opinion. Therefore, 
> a fair concensus tool between IETF meetings is required.
> 
> 
>>for once, a comment on the proposed solution.... I don't think there is
>>any need for consensus in order to *try* this. Just set it up, propose to
>>a WG that they use it, and see whta happens.
> 
> 
> - we did it in idn.
> - it actually helps a lot the wg to move forward. (well, the subject was
> pretty contentious, so an IETF meeting concensus pool would have
>  been as contentious as the one we did in the mailing list)
> - however, having a tool already in place for all wg would facilitate a lot
> the work of wg.
> 
> 
>>There are lots of little twists around "voting" tools, though....
> 
> 
> I know. I have additional sub-ideas on how to do it. If there is some
> interest, I can pursue on some req for this tool for IETF use.
> 

Talk about protecting the "silent majority" feels somehow out of place
in the ietf. To me the practice of public non-voting (i.e expression of
preference using humms or hands) is a strength of the process and
implies that those who object to or support an idea must be prepared to
publicly argue their position using well-founded technical arguments.

I know this is may be more of a goal than reality for some wgs but imho
voting (especially non-public voting) carry too many implications to
this community to be at the discression of a single wg.

	Cheers Leif