Re: Consensus

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>]

Dear Sam,
I reviewed the meaning of "filibustering" in different dictionaries 
and wikipedia. I have to apologize to everyone. I took the word [from 
its origin - filibustero, flibustier, freebooter] in a totally 
confusing way. Actually, I see now that a "filibuster" is what Harald 
has now engaged the IETF/IESG into, to confuse the RFC 3066 bis 
appeal and the IAB appeal.

Stupid of mine. Now, I have a problem because I have no simple word 
to name my kind of action and describe my relentless diversified and 
pertinent ways to get delivered what I need, user's QA included, in 
the multilingualisation area, as described by the Tunis documents.

At 01:12 21/01/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> writes:
>
>     JFC> Dear Sam, I go through     JFC> The problem is that the 
> IETF works by consensus but thinks by
>     JFC> hummings. Working by consensus means that I MAY be right
>     JFC> against _everyone_ (here an external affinity group in a new
>     JFC> area). But the community has no mechanism to address that
>     JFC> case. What to do if I am really right?
>
> The IETF actually works by rough consensus not consensus.  If you are
> the only one who holds an opinion then by the decision making process
> we as a community have chosen we will decide against you.

Confusion is the problem. It makes difficult:
- sometime to understand the position of the community
- if a rough consensus has been really found.

WG consensus by exhaustion, IETF consensus by disinterest, IESG 
consensus by impossibility to know everything are not rough 
consensus. This is why appeals may be necessary for important issues.

BTW, you say "if you are the only one". How many should we be?

> You have an opportunity to try and convince us you are right and we
> are wrong.  But if you fail to do that we will move on without you.

Only God, true geeks and fools should try and convince.
I am interested in being convinced, possibly in informing.
And in obtaining the corresponding deliverables.
See below.

> If you attempt to stop us from moving on once we have listened to you
> and determined the rough consensus is against you, then you will be
> excluded.

I am a user: there cannot be a rough consensus against me. But there 
may be a rough consensus not to deliver what I need. Then I am just 
no more interested. We will only oppose if the IETF disloyaly 
interferes with others' deliverables (or mine's). What I thought impossible.

> I think we have decided as a community that filibustering
> is not something we will tolerate.

Agreed. Now, I understand. A PR-action is a good filibuster ... .

> So you should expect to be excluded from any forum where you filibuster.

Correct. But I never did. Except unwillingly when misunderstanding 
the filibustering concept. This may have confused some and made them 
and you waste time. I hate that. I apologize again.

But I would be pleased if someone could help with a proper better 
word. Since this community seems so much interested in reviving an 
issue I though closed.
jfc












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