intent was Re: Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter]

I like Avri's reply. I think it would be far better to get a document
out very quickly that documents dissenting views, than to waste weeks
looking for consensus on what is ultimately a subjective question.

(Anyway, in this case the dissent is not very deep, and either way
of viewing the root cause problem is likely to lead to the same
solution.)

   Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> James Kempf wrote:
>  > Process question to chairs: is the intent that we achieve concensus
> on what the
>  > problems are for this draft, or is the draft supposed to reflect the
> diversity
>  > of opinion about the problems as input to the solution procedure?
>  >
> 
> I am not so sure that those two are that different in this
> case.
> 
> My operating assumption has been that organizational
> problems are always, to at least a certain degree, subjective.
> If this is the case, the entire set of problems perceived
> within a community as diverse as ours will not necessarily
> be perceived by all of the community members.
> 
> Reaching rough consensus on a problem set will involve
> collecting the problems that many people perceive as problems.
> In cases where a significant number of people do not believe
> that something is a problem while a significant number of others
> do perceive it as a problem, the best we may be able to do will
> be to document that difference of opinion.
> 
> This group will not be writing standards. Rather we will
> be attempting to produce an informational document that
> reflects, as much as possible, the issues our community
> sees as problems.  Requiring full consensus on every
> issue would possibly keep the document from including
> discussion of some key issues.
> 
> a.