Subject: Re: Musing on draft-resnick-on-consensus-01

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:04:07 +0100

I agree that many don't understand how consensus is targeted. Suggest
that the draft to be more related to participant discussions and
reasonable disputes. However, IMHO, we need first enogh discussions to
get to rough consensus, so the IETF WG Chairs should not ignore any
input only after the *discussions* become repeated/non-productive. If
there are discussions, then we should postpone the call for consensus,

AB

On 2/14/13 2:02 PM, SM wrote:
> The IAB recently had a discussion about "bottom-up organizational
> modes".  If I am not mistaken (please correct me) the IETF is the only
> organization that uses "humming".  I would say that it works in the IETF
> as it is part of the culture; it cannot be grafted on an organization.
> There are cases when a show of hands can be used.  The sentence that
> follows the quoted text explains when to use "humming".

It seems to me that this kind of misses the point.  Consensus-
based decision making is not simply not voting, but it's processy
and a mechanism for reaching a decision collaboratively.  Unfortunately
it's been the case for a very long time that the IETF does not
actually do that, that participants don't understand what it
means to use "rough consensus" for reaching decisions, working
group chairs often don't understand, IESG members often don't
understand, etc.  So if people in the process tend to see it
as a particular variant on voting, and they're incorrect, it's
probably a mistake to use mechanisms that tend to support the
incorrect view.  Hand raising looks so much like voting that
it's confusing.

> It's not possible to resolve
> an issue if the two sides are not ready to compromise.

This is probably *the* principal problem in consensus
decision-making.  The participants have to be invested
in making the process work, and in having a mutually
satisfactory outcome.  That's very, very often not the
case in the IETF, and I'm enthusiastic about Pete's draft
as a result - as much about culture transfer as about
process normativity and improvement.

In some sense what's under discussion actually exists in
the IESG, with DISCUSSes being blocking, etc.  The difference,
of course, is that at some level there's an expectation of
altruism from IESG members but not of IETF participants.

There's a huge issue here with education.  And again, kudos to
Pete for taking this on.  It's a very steep hill.

> There are different types of consensus; e.g. the consensus of the girls,
> which is unappealable.

Whut?

Melinda

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 06:51:26 -0900

On 2/15/13 3:04 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> reasonable disputes. 

Absolutely not.

Melinda

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:22:00 +0900

my take is that we have advanced to that stage of organizational life
where we have newcomers who, when faced with a new culture with subtle
process, are led by personal and/or cultural background to assert that
the process should be changed to a model which they already understand,
and for it to be documented in triplicate.  rightly or wrongly, for
historical and left coast cultural reasons, the ietf culture is more to
watch, listen, learn, and *contribute technically*.  thanks, melinda,
for having the patience to try and educate.

randy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 07:25:58 -0900

On 2/15/13 7:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> thanks, melinda,

I have to apologize for being sleep-deprived and short (well, not
*short* short).  I think that so far the discussion has been
productive and I would really hate to see it derailed.  As nearly
as I can tell the only serious flaw with this document is that it's
quite overdue, and I'm very, very pleased that we're finally having
this discussion.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:12:29 +0100

On 2/15/13, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> and for it to be documented in triplicate.

I think nothing needs to change in community culture or world culture
because it develops by itself, but in IETF all people face new
culture, so all the newcomer-participants, oldcomer, and the
subscribed-listeners. The ietf processes may need to change to cope
with community needs.

> rightly or wrongly, for

I think IETF culture is more to volunteer, discuss, cooperate, and
contribute-technically.

AB