Well it sounds like at least three people, including myself, prefer the IETF model. Any other views? alexis On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
Tim
Thank-you. Quick question below...
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@sun.com> wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative suggestions? We need a simple model for reaching consensus here, that grows the community and adoption.
In practice, I've had experience with three processes; ... ... In the W3C, you argue for a while and then the chair (co-chairs usually) assert what the consensus is. Informally consensus is considered to be the absence of sustained intense reasonable resistance. If you disagree you appeal to the Area Director, the IESG, the IAB and eventually the Internet Society (I may have that appeal chain out of order).
Did you mean 'IETF' for this last item?
Yes. Note that it's also my strong preference to follow the IETF's example, whereby discussion focusing on the technical merits of each alternative would continue until rough consensus is reached (as called by the chairs) with an appeal chain through the OGF in the unlikely event that it is needed.
The key thing is to stay focused on the technical pros and cons and leave all the other cruft (such as unhelpful REST religious debates) at the door.
Sam