suggestions (voting)

[Marc Blanchet]

--- dimanche, novembre 24, 2002 18:27:36 +0100 Leif Johansson
<leifj@it.su.se> wrote/a =E9crit:

>=20
>=20
>> 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,=20
>> a fair concensus tool between IETF meetings is required.
>>=20
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> - 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>>> There are lots of little twists around "voting" tools, though....
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>=20
> 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=20

I agree.

> and
> implies that those who object to or support an idea must be prepared to
> publicly argue their position using well-founded technical arguments.
>

However, say it is two weeks after an IETF. If chairs want to find what the
wg feels in order to move forward on a topic, there is no practical way.
You can ask a question on the mailing list. two people can respond: one
against and one for. What is the conclusion? wg is half-half? no.=20
do get that sense, you have to do the pool for all wg participants. You
either wait until next IETF or you try to conduct something on-line.

That is what I'm proposing: it is not to change the procedure, but to setup
and offer a "voting (or named it as we want)" tool so that chairs can ask
questions on the mailing list that would give them the equivalent of the
"public non-voting" but on-line.

Marc.

>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 	Cheers Leif
>=20



------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viag=E9nie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
  IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------