Re: Making Decisions in the IETF
Nathanael Ritz <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:31:29 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHxYnaPg_vQf3rfNktsT6qQgGhYvYbyNeSbgNikxCarawrJS1Q@mail.gmail.com> |
--000000000000a38d3e06573b8a21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, SM=E2=80=99s questions are useful and I don=E2=80=99t have specific notes t= o add, but this thread feels like a reasonable place to stay, in order to offer an addition 2c of my own. =E2=80=9CIf the objection has been heard, understood, and addressed (even i= f not accommodated), rough consensus can still be declared.=E2=80=9D This statement is floating 5 paragraphs down in section 1, when it feels to me like it is practically the central thesis. Or maybe I am just sensitive to the fact that I have observed that many times I=E2=80=99ve seen =E2=80=9Caddressed=E2=80=9D as equivalent to =E2=80= =9Caccommodated=E2=80=9D. Which means these individuals refuse to concede any agreement on the first if any particular objection they might have raised was not summarily accommodated to their satisfaction. >From my observations, much time has been wasted while stuck around a persistent loop based on this particular mode of disagreement. Cheers, Nathanael On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 5:09=E2=80=AFPM S Moonesamy <[email protected]> = wrote: > Hi Mark, Pete, > > I read the draft about "Making Decisions in the IETF". > > Section 1 of the draft states that the guidance in RFC 2418 has > served the IETF well for more than thirty years. It then goes on to > argue that the IETF has grown and the decisions made are more than > ever relevant to society. > > (a) It's not often that one finds guidance which has served a > group well for over > thirty years. Why is the guidance no longer working as it did > thirty years ago? > > (b) What changed in the group as it grew? > > (c) What is the difference in the decisions made thirty years ago > and those taken > nowadays? > > Section 1.1 has the following: "decision making by voting is > inappropriate -- it would make our processes vulnerable to rule by > majority and vote stuffing." I followed a few working groups > today. There was voting in a few of those working groups. If I read > the text from the draft literally, I would conclude that there was > something inappropriate going on. > > Section 2 of the draft has the following: "groups SHOULD maintain a > record of decisions". Are there cases where a group does not have > to record a decision? > > Section 3 of the draft states that adoption does not consensus. I > thought that little gem was fairly well-known. That is not reflected > in the various mailing list discussions which I have seen. > > Section 3 ends with a statement that lack of consensus is not a valid > basis for an appeal. I could guess at what one of the authors is > getting at and I would not disagree on that. I would not take the > same position if I had to apply that as a rule. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > > --000000000000a38d3e06573b8a21 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">Hi,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">SM= =E2=80=99s questions are useful and I don=E2=80=99t have specific notes to = add, but this thread feels like a reasonable place to stay, in order=C2=A0t= o offer an addition 2c of my own.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d= iv dir=3D"auto">=E2=80=9C<span style=3D"font-family:"noto sans",a= rial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)">If the obj= ection has been heard, understood, and addressed (even if not accommodated)= , rough consensus can still be declared.=E2=80=9D</span></div><div dir=3D"a= uto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto sans",arial,helvetica,sans-= serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"a= uto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto sans",arial,helvetica,sans-= serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)">This statement is floating 5 p= aragraphs down in section 1, when it feels to me like it is practically the= central thesis.=C2=A0</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-fa= mily:"noto sans",arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;col= or:rgb(34,34,34)"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-fa= mily:"noto sans",arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;col= or:rgb(34,34,34)">Or maybe I am just sensitive to the fact that I have obse= rved that many times I=E2=80=99ve seen =E2=80=9Caddressed=E2=80=9D as equiv= alent to =E2=80=9Caccommodated=E2=80=9D. Which means these individuals refu= se=C2=A0to concede any agreement on the first if any particular objection t= hey might have raised was not summarily accommodated to their satisfaction.= =C2=A0</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto = sans",arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)= "><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto = sans",arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)= ">From my observations,=C2=A0much time has been wasted while stuck around= =C2=A0a persistent loop based on this particular mode of disagreement.</spa= n></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto sans",= arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br></spa= n></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto sans",= arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)">Cheers,</= span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:"noto sans&quo= t;,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:inherit;color:rgb(34,34,34)">Nathan= ael =C2=A0</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail= _quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed,= Jul 22, 2026 at 5:09=E2=80=AFPM S Moonesamy <<a href=3D"mailto:sm%2Biet= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote cl= ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid= rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Mark, Pete,<br> <br> I read the draft about "Making Decisions in the IETF".<br> <br> Section 1 of the draft states that the guidance in RFC 2418 has <br> served the IETF well for more than thirty years.=C2=A0 It then goes on to <= br> argue that the IETF has grown and the decisions made are more than <br> ever relevant to society.<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0(a) It's not often that one finds guidance which has serve= d a <br> group well for over<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0thirty years.=C2=A0 Why is the guidance no longe= r working as it did <br> thirty years ago?<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0(b) What changed in the group as it grew?<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0(c) What is the difference in the decisions made thirty years = ago <br> and those taken<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0nowadays?<br> <br> Section 1.1 has the following: "decision making by voting is <br> inappropriate -- it would make our processes vulnerable to rule by <br> majority and vote stuffing."=C2=A0 I followed a few working groups <br= > today.=C2=A0 There was voting in a few of those working groups.=C2=A0 If I = read <br> the text from the draft literally, I would conclude that there was <br> something inappropriate going on.<br> <br> Section 2 of the draft has the following: "groups SHOULD maintain a <b= r> record of decisions".=C2=A0 =C2=A0Are there cases where a group does n= ot have <br> to record a decision?<br> <br> Section 3 of the draft states that adoption does not consensus.=C2=A0 I <br= > thought that little gem was fairly well-known.=C2=A0 That is not reflected = <br> in the various mailing list discussions which I have seen.<br> <br> Section 3 ends with a statement that lack of consensus is not a valid <br> basis for an appeal.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I could guess at what one of the authors i= s <br> getting at and I would not disagree on that.=C2=A0 I would not take the <br= > same position if I had to apply that as a rule.<br> <br> Regards,<br> S. Moonesamy<br> <br> <br> </blockquote></div></div> --000000000000a38d3e06573b8a21--