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

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

I agree with Brian & Avri.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: 02 March, 2003 16:43
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: intent was Re: Section 2.4 of
> draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
> 
> 
> 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.
>