suggestions (voting)

[Sam Hartman]

>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca> writes:
    Marc> problem: judging wg concensus every 4 months is long, which
    Marc> makes the wg not moving on topics.  solution: replicate
    Marc> on-line the public non-voting process, so it can be used
    Marc> anytime and don't wait for the next IETF to resolve topics.

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

I don't think we need to talk about or propose solutions at this stage
of the game even if we do agree about the problem.  The purpose of
this list (as I understand it) is to come up with a clear statement of
problems we can get rough consensus on.

It seems like prolonged discussion of solutions will take effort away
from that goal especially if it leads us to focus on disagreement over
solutions when we would otherwise have agreed on the problem.

A particular bad case that seems fairly likely is that we spend
significant time debating solutions to a relatively unimportant
problem and ignore clear statements of more important problems.