Subject: Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:33:18 -0500 (EST)

> From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>

    > When those notes come from people who do not routinely participate on
    > IETF lists

Well, that's the $64 million question, right? I mean, I don't personally
subscribe to every IETF-related list, so I have no idea if the people who are
posting are active in some subset of the IETF, just not (previously) this
list. And does someone have to have spoken up on a list, to have just as much
right to an opinion as a frequent poster? Some people are just naturally quiet.

I'd say that if anyone has been subscribed to any IETF list _prior_ to the
call to 'join in', their opinion ought to have just as much weight as those
of us who have historically been more wordy on the main list.

	Noel

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:59:29 -0500

For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the +1 fashion
recently are primarily people I've known to be active in the IETF for
years - including some WG chairs.

I don't think this is an effort to round up external voters - but
rather encouragement to others inside IETF to publicly speak up.

Alia

who usually doesn't post much on the general IETF list either

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
>    > From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
>
>    > When those notes come from people who do not routinely participate on
>    > IETF lists
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:49:15 -0900

> years - including some WG chairs.

I tend to be involved with different working groups from the ones
John is, and I've assumed (forgive me) that he's seeing something
somewhere that I'm not.  I've certainly seen the behavior he's
describing (flood of non-participants "voting").  I think there's
a difference between someone who's been contributing all along
participating in a consensus call by posting "+1" and someone
whom you can't tell whether or not actually read the draft posting
"+1" and it would be surprising indeed if the person responsible
for determining consensus (the chair) treated them as equal in
weight.

Actually, come to think of it, we've seen a certain amount of this
concerning the draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request draft.

Anyway, I take the situation that John's describing as annoying
but not an actual problem - we don't decide by voting.

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:57:09 -0500

--On Thursday, February 16, 2012 07:49 -0900 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the
>> +1 fashion recently are primarily people I've known to be
>> active in the IETF for years - including some WG chairs.

> for determining consensus (the chair) treated them as equal in

Exactly.   I've also seen very clear situations in the past in
which people who haven't participated and haven't studied the
drafts have been rounded up on a mailing list associated with a
non-IETF body to "vote" in a particular way (fwiw, the worst
example I recall was with an IPR issue).
 
> concerning the draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

As you point out, I'm not in a good position to judge and was
trying to not do so.  However, I did see a piece of a note to
what appeared to be a non-IETF list suggesting that people go
record their endorsements on the grounds that numbers count.
The note that started this thread was intended, in part, to
point out that numbers of otherwise-content-free endorsements
don't count very much (or shouldn't).  I hoped to make that
point before someone in the opposing group made an effort to
round up all of his friends and acquaintances.

> but not an actual problem - we don't decide by voting.

And the particular thread started by
draft-weil-shared-transition has gone on long enough that I
assume that every IESG member, and especially the ADs who are
most relevant, are painfully aware of the issue.

There is one sense in which it is maybe an actual problem but it
isn't the voting issue (or lack thereof).  IMO, there are two
reasons why it is beneficial to have Last Call discussions on
the IETF list, rather than predominantly in private notes to the
IESG.  One is that we all get to know what the IESG is getting
told (except when the exceptions mentioned in the Last Call
announcement applies -- cases that I think it is important to
preserve).  But the other and IMO far more important reason is
that it is educational for the community: it may help people who
haven't made up their minds to do so and help others to better
understand the tradeoffs.    But, for both of those groups of
people, notes that are high in information content --
considerations and perspectives that have not appeared on the
list before, new facts and arguments-- are very useful.  People
repeating themselves and their positions are not and simply
endorsements aren't much more so - from the standpoint of
someone trying to read the discussions to build a better
understanding, both are pretty much noise (and bogus arguments
aren't much better).  And, since all of us are busy noise in a
long thread does tend to cause some messages that might contain
signal to get lost.

I don't believe anything can be "done about" the more noisy
behavior.  I can, however, hope that raising sensitivity to it
might help, if only a little, to reduce the rate at which it
increases.

    john

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:44:23 -0800

> but not an actual problem - we don't decide by voting.

Right.

And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the (relatively 
few) folk making decisions to distinguish between substantive vs. political 
input, rather than on trying to prevent the political input.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:45:47 -0600

On 2/17/12 7:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the 
> (relatively few) folk making decisions to distinguish between 
> substantive vs. political input, rather than on trying to prevent the 
> political input.

Getting the folk who evaluate consensus to distinguish between 
substantive and political input is certainly primary, though (hopefully) 
they already are able to do so. An important secondary goal is also to 
make sure that the folk giving substantive input understand that the 
folk evaluating it *do* take their input into account and *don't* take 
the political input into account. Too often, the mere posting of these 
content-free "endorsements" causes those who do contribute substantively 
to post their own retorts, muddying the record of the conversation. 
Further, if the decision happens to go the way of the "endorsements", 
people who have made substantive comments express displeasure at the 
"vote packing".

We do need to make sure that the folks evaluating consensus know that 
"voting doesn't count" and that their decisions are made by consensus on 
the technical issues, not the number of people speaking. But we also 
need to make sure that community understands that "voting doesn't count" 
and that they are confident it is enforced. That might mean that 
occasionally we have to publicly say things like, "You do realize that 
we are ignoring this" to people who post the political input.

(I again glance over at my edit buffer with the beginnings of a short 
essay "On consensus and humming" and think, "I've really got to finish 
that.")

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102