Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

[Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>]

Hello;

On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> --On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills  
> <sandy at WEIJax.com> wrote:
>
> >     This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF  
> > works.  Many
> > group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of  
> > getting
> > any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any,
> > after a period of free discussion.
> >     It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks "if anyone
> > objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace."  A CfC is  
> > assuming an
> > agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to
> > respond.  Any other response is undesired.
>
> In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of "no", so we're  
> into the much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus- 
> deciders that the naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or  
> convincing the ones who asked for the "consensus call" that despite  
> their strongly held convictions, there are good reasons why we  
> shouldn't just do what they want.....

To me, this is the trouble with such proposals.

If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it is  
fair to say that the majority either
was in favor, or at least acquiesced. At least, if people complain  
later, you can say, "you should have spoken up when appropriate." (I  
suppose, for symmetry, that the same could be said against a proposal  
if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but this  
must be rare indeed.)

But, as soon as there are _any_ objections, then people could remain  
silent saying to themselves "I agree" or "I don't care" or "I agree  
with the objections, which have been much better stated than I could  
do." You just don't know.

So, I regard it as improper to assume support either way from the  
"silent majority" if there is
any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't have  
consensus in the face of objections, but
it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to all  
the people who remain silent.

Regards
Marshall

> The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed -  
> or rather - succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no  
> present proposal that enjoys a strong consensus.
>
>                   Harald
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf