Subject: RE: "Discuss" criteria

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:05:12 -0800

There is another problem to do with consensus and the status quo.

Say we have a situation where a clear majority of a working group believes that a spec is unworkable unless a particular change is made. A small minority opposes the change for ideological reasons.

Should the outcome in this case be:

1) Neither proposal can advance until there is consensus
2) The status quo proposal trumps the position with majority support
3) The majority position is adopted.
4) Both proposals advance

In the case that the proposal is an additional feature then 3 and 4 are essentially the same.

The problem here is that the positions that are most likely to be held hostage by DISCUSS are cases like this one where there is a clear majority in favor of change but the minority see absolutely no reason to compromise because they consider that they hold an effective veto, the majority can go hang.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:10 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: "Discuss" criteria
> 
> 
> to follow up on Dave's note
> 
> > * The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical
> >   approach or document. There are cases where individual working 
> >   groups or areas have forged rough consensus around a technical 
> >   approach which does not garner IETF consensus. An AD may DISCUSS 
> >   a document where she or he believes this to be the case. While 
> >   the Area Director should describe the technical area where
> >   consensus is flawed, the focus of the DISCUSS and its resolution 
> >   should be on how to forge a cross-IETF consensus.
> 
> what actual evidence must an AD present to indicate that the 
> assertion of non-consensus is anywhere but in the one AD's mind?
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:01:58 -0500

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:05:12 -0800
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Say we have a situation where a clear majority of a working group
> believes that a spec is unworkable unless a particular change is
> made. A small minority opposes the change for ideological reasons.
> 
> The problem here is that the positions that are most likely to be
> held hostage by DISCUSS are cases like this one where there is a
> clear majority in favor of change but the minority see absolutely no
> reason to compromise because they consider that they hold an
> effective veto, the majority can go hang.

If it's a small enough minority, in theory that isn't enough to block
progress.  2418 says

   IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
   this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
   working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
   "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
   persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
   can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on 
   which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
   of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
   better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
   consensus has been reached.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:08:14 -0500

>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[email-masked]> writes:

    Hallam-Baker,> There is another problem to do with consensus and
    Hallam-Baker,> the status quo.  Say we have a situation where a
    Hallam-Baker,> clear majority of a working group believes that a
    Hallam-Baker,> spec is unworkable unless a particular change is
    Hallam-Baker,> made. A small minority opposes the change for
    Hallam-Baker,> ideological reasons.

    Hallam-Baker,> Should the outcome in this case be:

    Hallam-Baker,> 1) Neither proposal can advance until there is
    Hallam-Baker,> consensus 

Steve answered part of this.

If the minority is large enough--and I think that reasonably small is
large enough--then I think 1) is the right outcome.

Often you can get consensus on a way to break the deadlock even if you
can't get consensus on the issue directly.

There are a lot of things you as a chair can do to try and break these
deadlocks.  Ultimately, though, if you can't get consensus you can't
get consensus.

I realize we disagree on this point, but ideology is a fine reason in
my mind to fail to have consensus.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:36:31 -0800

On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> clear majority in favor of change but the minority see absolutely  
> no reason to compromise because they consider that they hold an  

That has in fact happened on occasion, but not frequently. When I was  
IETF Chair, we created a procedure for turning the rare "go hang"  
case around; in my time, it was never exercised, and I am told that  
it has happened once since.

Whether I agree with them or not, I do tend to think that "discuss"  
ballots are intended to improve a specification, not stop it.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:16:10 -0800

On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> ideology is a fine reason in my mind to fail to have consensus.

Hmm. I have to think for a moment on the definition of ideology.

I'm thinking first of a particular discussion we have going on in  
tsvwg. Some are asserting that where the law of large numbers  
applies, one can detect the onset of congestion by measuring the  
behavior of traffic around a guard band. I am asserting that where  
the law of large numbers does not apply, the behavior of the kinds of  
traffic in question don't lend themselves to that technique and  
something more like IntServ is appropriate. Others are stating that  
they believe that they believe that external measurements of traffic  
behavior in a guard band is adequate even in domains where there is  
only capacity for a single digit number of simultaneous sessions,  
such as BRI ISDN. I have a statement in an internet draft that says  
that intserv signaling is necessary on access links, and did not  
agree to "bless" guard band signaling on 64 KBPS links because I  
think that is just plain wrong.

Is my argument "I won't put it in because I think it's demonstrably  
incorrect" an example of "ideology"? If so, then I agree with you.

The general usage of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology  
gives an article, the Online Dictionary gives two definitions: "The  
body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an  
individual, group, class, or culture," or "A set of doctrines or  
beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other  
system") makes it less about engineering correctness than about  
conformance to a social viewpoint. If you're discussing the latter,  
then I have a quibble.

Which did you mean?