suggestions (voting)

Marc Blanchet Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:07:07 -0500


Hi,
 it seems to me that I'm not clear on what I'm saying. Maybe the word
"voting" has too much overloaded meaning. Let start again:
- wg meet physically every ~4 months.
- public non-voting is used during meetings to judge wg concensus on a =
topic

problem: judging wg concensus every 4 months is long, which makes the wg
not moving on topics.
solution: replicate on-line the public non-voting process, so it can be
used anytime and don't wait for the next IETF to resolve topics.

Question is:
- do we agree about the problem?
- if yes, then=20
    if you agree with the solution,=20
      fine
    else=20
      what do you propose.
  else=20
    then we don't need to talk about the solution, since we don't agree
with the problem.

Marc.

-- lundi, novembre 25, 2002 01:15:21 +0100 Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se>
wrote/a =E9crit:

> Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> --- dimanche, novembre 24, 2002 18:27:36 +0100 Leif Johansson
>> <leifj@it.su.se> wrote/a =E9crit:
>=20
> <snip>
>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>=20
> There is a big difference: when you are conducting a vote you can't turn
> to those who have voted and ask them to motivate their position. I agree
> with Kurt Zeilengas formulation of this principle: contention is out of
> scope. I.e if you need a tool to judge the sense of a wg then you don't
> have clear consensus and you need to think about what the wg is doing.
>=20
> Remember: the wg members have to basically agree -- there is no way for
> the ietf to create standards with a 51% majority vote and there is no
> stick with which to beat companies who don't implement RFCs. Ultimately
> the market decides what solutions get deployed. This is (imho) why the
> ietf works (when it does): since we almost only standardize (not
> counting all published RFCs mind you) what we agree on the acceptance
> of ietf standards in the market is almost a tautology.
>=20
> Sorry if I was rambling a bit there ;-)
>=20
> 	Cheers Leif
>=20