Re: [ga] Consensus

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 04:21 PM 7/17/2001 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>There seems to be a lot of different definitions of the word consensus
>floating around.  The "chairs" seem to think that it means 18 out of
>336.  Mr. Weinberg seems to think that it means simply the voice of the
>chairperson.
>Amongst standard-setting bodies (ANSI, IETF, ISO) consensus generally
>means one of two things: either nearly unanimous support or, failing
>unanimity, no serious objections (i.e., only minor, technical details
>standing in the way of unanimity).

         For my own part, I think it would be desirable if we could follow 
the IETF approach Joe Kelsey cites.  Here's the relevant language from RFC 
2418 (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures):

>    Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
>    IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
>    this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
>    working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
>    "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
>    persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) 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.
>    [snip]
>    [W]here the discussion has been held entirely over
>    the mailing list[, t]he determination of the level of consensus may be
>    harder to do . . . 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.  The most common method used is for the working
>    group chair to state what he or she believes to be the consensus view
>    and. at the same time, requests comments from the list about the
>    stated conclusion.

         To repeat: the most common method for determining consensus, under 
RFC 2418, is for the chair to state what he believes to be the consensus 
view and to request comments about that judgment from the list.  On the 
basis of the comments people make in response, he can determine whether the 
proposition is in fact supported by rough consensus.  It had seemed to me 
that that would be useful here:  On a housekeeping matter such as this one, 
if over a period of a week or so the comments are overwhelmingly in favor 
of the proposition (as they have been so far), it is a remarkably 
profligate use of resources to request that the DNSO Secretariat hold a 
formal, fancy vote to confirm that consensus.

         It's true that this approach does require that somebody have the 
job of deciding whether consensus is in fact present; RFC 2418 assigns that 
job to the chair.  It may be that in the current environment of the GA, 
folks don't trust anyone, including the chair, to perform that function -- 
so they're demanding formal votes for everything.  But that has a 
cost.  Holding elaborate votes, on questions that aren't much in dispute, 
consumes a lot of resources.

Jon


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html