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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:59:08 -0500 (EST)

> From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>

    > 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.

Yes, but how do you tell where the consensus is if 97% of the people in the
'room' haven't expressed an opinion? The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
giving a larger sample size (provided, of course, that they are from long-time
IETF partipants).

	Noel

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:18:34 -0800

On 2/17/2012 9:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> (provided, of course, that they are from long-time
> IETF partipants).

Noel,

Given that Nomcom membership can be granted to folk who have attended only a few 
recent meetings and without any requirement that they know or have done anything 
in the IETF, exactly what do you mean by "long-time IETF participants".

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:14:18 -0600

On 2/17/12 11:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>      >  From: Pete Resnick<[email-masked]>
>
> 'room' haven't expressed an opinion?

Condensing part of my unfinished essay to a few sentences: You decide 
consensus based on open issues, not on number of voices. If folks have 
brought up unanswered objections, there's not consensus yet (rough or 
otherwise). If all objections have been answered (even if the answer is 
simply a well-reasoned, "We understand that that is an issue, but for 
these other reasons, we're not solving that problem", and there is not 
significant objection to dismissing the issue), then the presumption is 
that there is at least rough consensus.

If the 97% haven't expressed an opinion, you presume that they are not 
filing objections and are therefore consenting. Consensus is all about 
consent, not expressed agreement. Objection is the only way for there 
not to be consensus.

> The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in

Not to me. I don't see what they add.

pr

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:52:41 -0500

> Not to me. I don't see what they add.

It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something.  It asks whether the WG is solidly behind
something, or whether there are actually just two or three people
interested and everybody else not paying attention.

I think that is an important question to answer, because the answer to
an important question that is just (for some reason) getting ignored
by a large number of IETF participants probably shouldn't be regarded
as IETF consensus in any sense.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:10:16 -0900

> interested and everybody else not paying attention.

What is a "working group"?

Melinda

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:30:18 -0600

> as IETF consensus in any sense.

I agree, it's an important question to answer, but I'd suggest it is 
orthogonal to the worth of what I'm referring to as 'me too' posts.

If there's a conversation on a mailing list, even if it is among two or 
three people, I do want to know whether other people are listening (and 
thereby consenting) or whether they're sleeping. In a physical room, I 
can see the difference between "nodding of heads" and "nodding off"; not 
so easy on a mailing list. So, replying *to a particular point* during a 
discussion with the occasional, "Yup, she's right on the mark" or "I 
couldn't have said it better myself" or even "+1" when it comes from 
folks who have participated in the past is certainly a good thing, and 
it scales in a WG (since a chair/shepherd has a handle on who's 
participating and who's not).

At Last Call time (WG LC, and even moreso IETF LC), I don't find it 
useful. Last Call is a time for figuring out whether all outstanding 
objections have been addressed. If objections come up and someone agrees 
with the objection, or if there's an answer to an objection and someone 
agrees with that answer, *and I happen to know the person who is doing 
the agreeing*, then a "+1" might be useful as a sanity check. But if 
there's no outstanding objection to be answered, I don't see what "I 
agree this should be published" or "Me too" on such messages adds to my 
ability to judge consensus. I'm happy to go on the assumption that 
silence is consent. I'll trust that some folks have read and discussed 
the document.

Now, this all goes pear-shaped if there hasn't ever been any reading and 
having a real discussion. There's got to be some indication that some 
reasonable number of folks have been awake. But I can't figure that out 
from 'me too' posts unless I'm already well aware that those people are 
awake and have been participating, in which case the 'me too' didn't add 
anything.

In the small, 'me toos' (of a certain sort) can work. In the large, I 
stand by my claim: "I don't see what they add."

pr

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:51:37 -0800

Hi Melinda,
>What is a "working group"?

It is a group, comprised of technically competent participants, 
governed by a charter which:

   1. lists relevant administrative information for the group

   2. specifies the direction or objectives of the working group and
      describes the approach that will be taken to achieve the goals;
      and

   3. Enumerates a set of milestones together with time frames for their
      completion.

The group is autonomous; it determines most of the details of its own 
operation with respect to session participation, reaching closure, etc.

For more information, see BCP 25.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:18:55 -0700

> *and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*

I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit unnerving.
Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't. When a person's
opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged exclusively by "do I know
this person" then you have an Old Boys Club, not an open body.

How many people have time to read and respond to every email on every
mailing list everywhere in the world that is discussing something
relevant to them? Not many. Especially in the operator community,
people have jobs, projects, and duties that keep them from being
active in every discussion that they are interested in. Relegating
them to second class citizens (or stripping their citizenship
altogether) because they are actually spending time running a network
seems counter intuitive to me.

We should allow everyone to participate in the best way that they can
if we want them to participate at all - and if we don't, then perhaps
the ITU provides a better model for keeping the rif-raf out of
standards creation...

With hope for the future,
~Chris

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

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:23:39 -0700

On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
> unnerving. Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't.
> When a person's opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged
> exclusively by "do I know this person" then you have an Old Boys
> Club, not an open body.

Chris, I think Pete meant that if he happens to know the personal
context of the person who says "+1" then he can impute some meaning to
it (because he knows the person has been following the discussion,
knows what that person's concerns have been in past threads, etc.). He
is not saying that you need to be part of the club in order to gain a
hearing, only that if he doesn't know you then a mere +1 carries less
(or no) weight with him.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:29:56 -0700

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:23, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

I did not mean to call Pete (or anyone else) out directly, as I am
sure many/most individuals commenting here have the best intentions. I
did want to respond to what seems to be a common sentiment that has
appeared in this thread (and elsewhere previously) regarding new or
quiet participants vs. long time active participants. Hopefully my
concern is unwarranted.

Cheers,
~Chris

>
> Peter
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8+xVsACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx8UwCgptyPIxtXJH2+xexpuFGzoO/d
> To0An2IF6fuHcLe0IYLYtEGRZ1xjcsxu
> =rUY5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:34:20 -0800

> hearing, only that if he doesn't know you then a mere +1 carries less

I hope Pete meant something a bit more than that. In specific, I hope he meant:

if he happens to know the personal
context of the person who says "+1" then he can impute some meaning to
it, but if he doesn't know the personal context, then he needs to
put effort into finding it out

That is, in a WG where you are leading a consensus call, if you get a significant number of +1s or -1s from people who haven't participated in the conversation to date, it is your responsibility to try to find out why. "I just got started" is a perfectly good reason, as is "I have been following this silently but this is the first thing I thought was important"; "I was told to join the list and vote" is also context that is good to know.

All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that started this thread.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:47:48 -0500

> All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that

And I want to repeat, once more, that there was no proposal.
There was an observation about what I consider a problem.  That
observation was intended to make it clear that the problem I saw
was the noise, not the content of anyone's remarks and the
degree to which they should be considered.  Then there was a
comment, intended in jest, about a way to cut the noise off.

I did intend to start a small discussion about people trying to
round others up to make endorsements but the intent had more to
do with raising consciousness than about making new rules.  Over
the last few decades, I've been pretty consistent about my
position about trying to create finely-tuned rules in the IETF
and that position has never been "another layer of rules,
especially rules that require hair-splitting or knowing what
people are actually thinking, will help solve basic problems.

The people who have suggested to me offlist that it would have
been wiser to not say anything until I found a time when there
were no controversial issues in IETF Last Call were almost
certainly correct.  Sorry about that.

If what I said and when I said it confused people, I apologize
for my sense of humor.  It wouldn't be the first time others
have concluded that my sense of humor is bizarre and made
excessive inferences on that basis.

     john

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:02:25 -0600

> put effort into finding it out

+1. ;-)

I think I might be able to decipher what Pete meant. I think Paul and 
Peter have it mostly right.

If there's an ongoing discussion and on a technical point someone says, 
"+1", I might know what that means. If the person who said "+1" has been 
participating in the rest of the conversation and I have the context of 
what that person knows, what points they've made in the past, etc., then 
I surely understand how to take the "+1". As I said, not a whole lot of 
data, but a sanity check on the point being discussed. But if a random 
participant who has said nothing to date in the discussion simply says, 
"+1", I have no idea how to give that any weight. Is this someone who 
was instructed to come along and give a "+1", but has no idea what the 
technical conversation is about? Or is it an otherwise silent expert on 
the subject? The only way I can figure out what a "person's 
opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc." are is for us to engage with 
eachother. I do not believe that "+1" constitutes engagement. I don't 
even think, "I support this document" constitutes engagement without a 
whole lot of other historical context. If you haven't been participating 
in the conversations, you should not expect your "+1"s to be given much 
weight.

It is absolutely true that this is an open body. But that doesn't mean 
it's a voting democracy. It's a consensus organization. Your mere 
presence doesn't count. It's your participating in the consensus that 
does. Participating means explaining and objecting and defending and 
discussing. 'Me too' is not one of those things unless you've already 
done a lot of engaging already.

> That is, in a WG where you are leading a consensus call, if you get a significant number of +1s or -1s from people who haven't participated in the conversation to date, it is your responsibility to…

I'd add that it is also the responsibility of the participants to make 
sure that they do explain why they have said "+1". This is a human 
endeavor. I might "+1" something on the expectation that "of course the 
chair knows who I am and what I know about this topic." The chair may 
instead be thinking, "OK, so this is some random schmo that his company 
sent to say 'me too'." That's a fail on both of our parts, not just the 
chair.

> All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that started this thread.

Noting that the supposed "proposal" was hyperbole, I will point to my 
initial reply to Dave: We still do need to occasionally call out 
publicly that we all recognize that political 'me toos' don't count. In 
fact, we ought not do counting at all.

pr

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:26:46 -0500

You are assuming that the truth value of statements can be decided by an impartial, technically-competent observer. In some of the recent discussions, many of the claims were "X is (not) going to do Y in the future" or "Using X may cause Y do to something". Unless the observer has a crystal ball, such statements are hard to evaluate objectively. In that case, predictions made by a larger number of (reasonably-informed) individuals may well have more weight, under the not-unreasonable assumption that conventional wisdom is often right.

Henning

On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> Condensing part of my unfinished essay to a few sentences: You decide consensus based on open issues, not on number of voices. If folks have brought up unanswered objections, there's not consensus yet (rough or otherwise). If all objections have been answered (even if the answer is simply a well-reasoned, "We understand that that is an issue, but for these other reasons, we're not solving that problem", and there is not significant objection to dismissing the issue), then the presumption is that there is at least rough consensus.
> 
> If the 97% haven't expressed an opinion, you presume that they are not filing objections and are therefore consenting. Consensus is all about consent, not expressed agreement. Objection is the only way for there not to be consensus.
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:53:36 -0800

>do with raising consciousness than about making new rules.  Over

Some people might say that it was courageous of you to do that.  Now, 
the question is what "courageous" means. :-)

The following topics generated high traffic on this list:

   shared address space - money

   mpls-tp-oam - SDO

   two-maturity - IETF politics

   6to4-historic - ivory tower

   tls-authz - ideology

Three of the above made it through the IESG.  One of them came out of 
a WG.  One of them was clearly a letter-writing campaign.  That 
delayed but did not change the outcome.  If the "wisdom of the 
crowds" was applied, the outcome would have been the reverse.  It 
would be interesting to know what materially affected the 
decision-making in the above.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with raising consciousness about border 
collies as long as you do not mention who is the sheep.

Regards,
-sm