Subject: Decision procedures (Re: #1043 "header": Suggested resolution)

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:33:23 +0200

--On 28. juni 2005 09:45 -0400 Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> On Mon June 27 2005 14:53, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>> if head counting is required.
>
> May I remind the co-chairs that there is still the unresolved
> question as to the method that is to be used to determine
> consensus; is it in fact a head count (in which case those of us
> who have been using reasoned arguments can adopt the simpler
> method of making a non-sequitur comment), or is it to be based
> on reasoned arguments as was the case in the Resnick-Gierth era,
> or something else?

RFC 2418 section 3.3:

   The other case is where the discussion has been held entirely over
   the mailing list.  The determination of the level of consensus may be
   harder to do in this case since most people subscribed to mailing
   lists do not actively participate in discussions on the list. It is
   left to the discretion of the working group chair how to evaluate the
   level of consensus.

Alexey and I decide.

                          Harald

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:19:37 -0400

>    left to the discretion of the working group chair how to evaluate the

The section also states:
   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.

Yes, we know that you and Alexey decide *if* consensus has been reached,
because that's explicitly what 2418 says.  But 2418 explicitly says that
the WG gets to agree on the means.  I have posted what a past co-chair
has indicated as the means, and I believe that that method had WG
consensus behind it.

The question, still unanswered, is whether or not that method, which
specifically calls for taking well-reasoned arguments into account, is
being followed by the current co-chairs in determining *if* consensus
is reached and where that consensus lies.  If so, it would help if the
co-chairs were more vociferous about what fails to qualify as a
well-reasoned argument; we have certainly had plenty of unsupported
assertions and "false statement[s] deliberately presented as being true"
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie) -- it would also help if,
when announcing that consensus has been reached, there were something
more substantive than a list of names.  If not, there seems to be a
problem, as I don't recall a WG consensus decision (based on that
established means of determining consensus) to change the means of
determining consensus.

2005-06-29:2

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:36:14 +0200

Bruce,

I believe you are referring

I believe you are referring to your posting:

> For reference, a past
> WG Chair had the following to say, and if I recall correctly, Alexey
> has agreed:
>   On the topic of voting: Especially on this topic, I think voting
>   would be stupid. The decision is about rough consensus. One screaming
>   person does not indicate that there is no rough consensus, but one or
>   two well-reasoned arguments against a screaming huge crowd does. And
>   a huge number of "I'd prefer X, but I couldn't care less" votes
>   versus 2 or 3 well-argued "X will spell doom for the Internet, and Y
>   will save it" votes *is* rough consensus for Y over X. So voting
>   generally doesn't help me decide one way or the other that there is
>   rough consensus.

This is a quote from Pete Resnick's message
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/2003/Jun/0099.html> - no need to be coy 
about who the previous chair is.

>From the same message:

>  (It's
>  also clear, BTW, that people are not listening to each other and
>  aren't trying to think of where we can come to consensus, which is
>  why people think they need a vote.)

Familiar?

> established means of determining consensus) to change the means of

One thing that probably should have been included: The fact that you think 
that you have a well-reasoned argument and your opponent's argument is 
totally beside the point has nothing to do with whether or not we have 
consensus.
In fact, you having what you think is a well-reasoned argument and totally 
failing to convince anyone else that the argument is reasonable is just 
another way of becoming the "rough" in "rough consensus". I will NEVER rule 
"rough consensus" on anything where I know that the majority of the group 
thinks it's a stupid idea.

When stating lists of names (which has happened rarely), I think of it 
mainly to make sure that the record shows that the decision was made in 
full knowledge of who does NOT agree; that these people have raised 
arguments against what has been ruled the consensus, their arguments have 
been heard, and the chairs have ruled that the group has consensus to 
proceed in spite of the disagreement.

I will absolutely refuse to poison the atmosphere of this list further by 
stating that specific people are lying. I'll also refuse to say that 
specific people are idiots, trolls, stiff-necked fools or any other 
epithets. What should matter in determining consensus is the content of the 
argument.

"False" is a statement about the argument. "Lie" is a statement about the 
person making it.

                          Harald

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:51:14 -0400

> Bruce,
[...]
> >   generally doesn't help me decide one way or the other that there is

Correct.

> about who the previous chair is.

Coyness (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=coy) has nothing to do with
it.  Yes, Pete wrote that; is that relevant (as distinct from the fact
that he was WG Chair at the time)?

For the record: I think Pete's a splendid fellow and did an outstanding
job as WG (co-)Chair.

I also think he had an excellent series of points regarding consensus,
which it why I quote it; I would probably not do so if I thought
otherwise (sometimes, one has to state the obvious).
 
> >  why people think they need a vote.)

Yes, and I would point out that in neither that case nor recently have *I*
called for "a vote" or "counting heads" or anything remotely like that.
 
> totally beside the point has nothing to do with whether or not we have 

Fine.  But there's no question that an unsupported assertion is no well-
reasoned argument or that an unsupported assertion which contradicts the
facts is "a falsehood".

> another way of becoming the "rough" in "rough consensus".

Maybe.  Perhaps it means that the reasoning is not understood (which is
why I encourage asking questions and why I do so myself when there is
some doubt about some claim or position).

> I will NEVER rule  

I believe it's important to distinguish whether somebody thinks something
is a "stupid" idea (not my epithet, just quoting) because of prejudice,
ignorance, or logical reasoning, as well as (in the last case) whether
it's a mild preference or a strong conviction (really irrelevant in the
other two cases).  See also Pete's comments about "a huge screaming crowd"
and "couldn't care less".

> proceed in spite of the disagreement.

I still believe it would be helpful to provide some indication of rationale,
so for example, if the list of names says
"so-and-so is against the proposal (no reason)"
one might contribute by saying "I agree with so-and-so and here are some
reasons...".  Unless of course the WG and/or its chairs don't care about
reasons, in which case "me too" would suffice.

It's also one thing if "their arguments" is the empty set and another if
they correspond to Pete's "x will spell doom for the Internet" (provided
of course that there is in fact an argument and not merely an unsubstantiated
claim).

> epithets.

The usual way of not saying something is, well, to not say it...

> What should matter in determining consensus is the content of the  
> argument.

Agreed.  How can that be done when there is no argument, just some
claim (or, for that matter, an irrelevant argument like "I'm opposed to
the X option because unripe bananas are green")?
 
> "False" is a statement about the argument. "Lie" is a statement about the 

No "lie" as a noun is a statement about a statement.  One that can
be substantiated, or not.

But back to the issue: where do we stand on the matter of the means
of determining consensus?  Do unsupported assertions count?  Do
false statements count?  Is "I'm in favor of x, but I couldn't care
less" weighed the same as "x will spell doom for the Internet"?  It
matters (for example, if unsupported assertions don't count, any WG
participant who wishes to make a point had better provide some
substance; conversely, if unsupported assertions count, we can simply
revert to an "is too"/"is not" shouting match (or disband, saving
the bandwidth, time, effort, and angst)).
  
2003-06-30:b (responding to specific issues)