Hums and mailing lists (Re: Problem statement draft comments)

[Bound, Jim]

Hums are inconclusive.  Use show of hands.
/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
>Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 3:42 PM
>To: Thomas Narten; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>Cc: pekkas at netcore.fi
>Subject: Re: Hums and mailing lists (Re: Problem statement 
>draft comments)
>
>
>
>
>--On 13. mars 2003 17:34 -0500 Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> And of course, the final outcome needs to be ratified on the mailing 
>> list. But, if the hum is done right, by definition there 
>shouldn't be 
>> major push back on the mailing list. I.e, if the hum agrees 
>on X, but 
>> there is a lot of pushback on the mailing list, that raises basic 
>> questions about whether enough of the right people were in the room 
>> for the hum to go on a particular direction. Or that the issues that 
>> are coming up on the mailing list were adequately considered before 
>> the hum took place.
>
>there was one rather famous example (in the security area, I 
>believe) when 
>the WG had an "unsolvable" problem in the mailing list, had a physical 
>meeting with one near-unanimous hum (the meeting lasted for all of 15 
>minutes), and then took the resolution back to the mailing 
>list - which 
>exploded, since the main opponent to the proposed solution 
>wasn't at that 
>IETF, and he managed to convince quite a few people that he 
>was right and 
>the hum was wrong.
>I'm sorry that I don't remember the WG or the year, or the 
>final outcome; I 
>wasn't directly implicated, but think it must have been in the mid-90s.
>
>(this was also one of the events that led us to consider 
>introducing 1-hour 
>slots on the agenda; for some meetings, we know beforehand 
>that 2 hours are 
>not needed...)
>
>                        Harald
>
>