Re: Making Decisions in the IETF

Hi Nathanael, Ben,
At 04:31 PM 22-07-2026, Nathanael Ritz wrote:
>This statement is floating 5 paragraphs down in=20
>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=20
>have observed that many times I've seen=20
>"addressed"=9D as equivalent to "accommodated"=9D.=20
>Which means these individuals refuse to concede=20
>any agreement on the first if any particular=20
>objection they might have raised was not=20
>summarily accommodated to their satisfaction.
>
> From my observations, much time has been wasted=20
> while stuck around a persistent loop based on=20
> this particular mode of disagreement.

I didn't comment about the "objection"=20
angle.  Sometimes there is an issue on which=20
participants initially disagree. There would be=20
some discussion.  An issue which was listed as=20
"addressed" does not have to be discussed=20
again.  I would read "accommodated" as there were=20
concessions.  It may happen that a participant(s)=20
has/have a strong opinion on the issue.  He/she=20
may be unwilling to concede.  The discussion can=20
go round in circles [1].  The puzzle is about how to break the loop.

At 04:37 PM 22-07-2026, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>I assume this refers to draft-nottnick-ietf-decisions?

Yes.

>I'm not either Mark or Pete, but I would argue that we have at least one
>worked example of the original guidance not working well
>(draft-ietf-tls-mlkem) and it seems totally reasonable to use that as a
>prompt to provide better guidance.

The example could be an outlier.  It could also=20
be argued that it is a signal that there should be better guidance.

>I don't think your description of what you observed provides enough
>information to be able to really answer the question.  It might indicate

Yes.

>something inappropriate, or it might just be a proxy for soliciting
>objections and assesing support, and such a proxy is probably fine in the
>absence of objections.

Let's assume that a person goes to a foreign=20
place.  The person read about the place.  He/she=20
sees something and interprets it based on what=20
he/she knows.  The foreign place was the working=20
group and the reading material was this draft.

>Are you proposing a change to the draft?

Not at the moment.

>I also think it would be helpful to give guidance to consensus callers on
>how to convey the results of the decision to the group, e.g., what
>information needs to be included, how to describe the decision process,
>what tradeoffs and use-cases were weighed against each other.  IIRC it took
>a significnat amount of time to produce summaries like
>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2QHMMX9g5vpFJaeH0okj40N3WjQ/ but
>I only remember ever getting positive feedback about having produced them.

You explained how the conclusion was=20
reached.  The difficult part is figuring out how=20
to balance the various views which were expressed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/go-round-in-circles =
=20