For what its worth, OGF is modeled after IETF, and the IETF process on reaching consensus should be applied. From http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.2.pdf : "The GGF intends to emulate, as appropriate, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF, www.ietf.org) and to support and complement the Internet Standards Process as outlined in [1]. is therefore advantageous that the GGF structure and process closely mirror those of the IETF. " [1] Bradner, S., âIETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,â RFC 2418, September 1998. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt Hope that helps, Andre. Quoting [Tim Bray] (Oct 19 2009):
On 2009-10-19, at 9:21 AM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
Gary
Thanks. That strikes me as a fairly complex process.
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; ISO, W3C/Oasis, and IETF process. ISO is institutional voting, with complex threshold rules. W3C and Oasis individual members vote. Of course, this means you have to define who's a member and thus gets a vote. 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). I prefer the IETF model but all have been observed to work. -Tim _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
-- Nothing is ever easy.