[Fwd: Re: rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")]

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Hi Erik,

This sounds like the best statement that I have heard on 'rough
consensus' - one additional benefit about this is that if someone
feels that the 'rough consensus' statement is in error, there
are processes in the IETF for filing appeals.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Erik Guttman [mailto:erik.guttman at sun.com]
> Sent: 16 July, 2003 16:22
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no; Scott W Brim
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")]
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Scott W Brim wrote:
> >>I like the idea that Chairs should document why they 
> declared consensus
> >>(or the lack of it).
> > 
> > 
> > Agreed. But another thing that may be going on is Chairs 
> making consensus 
> > calls too late.
> 
> The hardest part of calling consensus is its subtlety.  After 100s of
> emails have been exchanged and a rough consensus has emerged 
> it doesn't
> really exist (have any reality) until the consensus has been put into
> words by the chair.  Without a coherent statement posted to the list
> describing a consensus it is hard to know
>   - what actions it implies
>   - whether all dissenting views have been considered
>   - what compromises were made among those forming the consensus
>     (what were their positions originally and what did they agree to?)
> 
> Defending or questioning a consensus call requires mailing list
> archeology, which is a tedious and inexact discipline.  We should
> do better and we can.
> 
> ============================
> Solution discussion:
> 
> I have found that by documenting the
> 
>   - final decision and action to take
>   - summary of the dominant consensus position taken, including
>     where they aren't in accord
>   - well worked out dissenting views
>   - notes from the WG chair (if needed), to clarify how a difficult
>     decisions was made and why it is reasonable.
> 
> This sounds like a lot of writing.  It usually comes down to a page
> or two, even for very complex decisions.  Advantages of putting this
> in the record are
> 
> a) You can point at it when someone wants to bring the topic up
>     again.
> 
> b) If the chair overlooks something, it is easy to reopen the
>     consensus call *for a very specific reason* without reopening
>     the whole debate.  (Note:  Sometimes WG chairs do not fully
>     understand the issues they are making a consensus call on.
>     By writing this consensus document, it is easy to determine
>     whether the argument has been correctly heard and evaluated.)
> 
> c) It is a extremely useful to have definitive instructions *what
>     to do* with a consensus decision.
> 
> d) Once a consensus statement is accepted by the working group
>     we have something much more concrete than a record in WG
>     minutes that such and such was decided upon, etc.
> 
> Erik
> 
>