Internet DRAFT - draft-moonesamy-wg-consensus
draft-moonesamy-wg-consensus
Individual Submission S. Moonesamy
Internet-Draft August 4, 2012
Intended status: Informational
Expires: February 5, 2013
Working Group Consensus
draft-moonesamy-wg-consensus-01
Abstract
This memo discusses about Working Group rough consensus within the
IETF.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 5, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Moonesamy Expires February 5, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WG Consensus August 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Rough consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Dissenting views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Cross-area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Summarizing the discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Birds of a feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Moonesamy Expires February 5, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WG Consensus August 2012
1. Introduction
The IETF uses a consensus decision-making process to create Internet
Standards and to standardize practices and the results of the
deliberations of the IETF community. The starting point is a
proposal submitted as an Internet-Draft or a Birds of a Feather
(BoF). The proposal undergoes a period of development, generally
within a working group, and several iterations of review before a
final review by the IETF community.
The decision-making process used in a working group is based on rough
consensus. Issues are sometimes raised during an IETF Last Call.
This memo discusses about rough consensus and whether issues are
raised because a working group has not given thorough consideration
to the technical alternatives.
2. Working Group
A working group has a charter which describes the problem(s) to be
solved, the deliverables to be produced and milestones for the
deliverables.
2.1. Rough consensus
Consensus does not require complete agreement; one way to describe it
is that everyone is willing to accept a decision.
To create a climate of consensus, it is up to the working group to
give thorough consideration to technical alternatives and to ensure
that issues have been given due consideration. Although only rough
consensus is required, issues which are hand-waived by a working
group can surface again during the IETF Last Call jeopardizing the
efforts of the working group.
It is up to the Working Chair and the Working Group to ensure that
consensus, or at least rough consensus, can be achieved.
2.2. Dissenting views
Dissenting views can go unheard. Some participants overcome that by
re-posting their arguments and end up being labelled as vocal
participants. Controversies are fueled by inflamatory statements,
personal attacks or subtle condescending comments.
Moonesamy Expires February 5, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WG Consensus August 2012
2.3. Cross-area
A working group has a narrow view of a problem. It is difficult to
attract expertise from other areas as people are busy or they do not
have a stake in the solution to bother commenting on it. Even when
there are people with such expertise, they might be ignored when they
provide advice if it will slow down the work or it does not fit
within the solution that the working group is willing to hear.
2.4. Summarizing the discussion
It is not always obvious for a participant following a discussion to
understand the diverse viewpoints, e.g. the discussion generates a
high volume of messages covering minute technical details or issues
which seem unrelated to the subject of contention. Instead of
summarizing the discussion, it is assumed that the the participants
understood each other.
2.5. Conflict of interest
A decision-making process leads to conflict if it is not viewed as
fair and open. Such conflicts can arise through misunderstandings
or, sometimes, self-interest. Conflict of interest could be
construed as when the person taking the decision shares the primary
affiliation, e.g. they work for the same company, as the person(s)
affected by the decision.
The affiliation of a person in a working group is not always obvious
nowadays as the person might be using a email address from a vanity
domain or a free account instead of one from the company he/she works
for. Working Group editors generally mention the company they work
for in drafts. It is awkward for a participant to ask a Working
Group Chair to disclose the information. A participant can contact
the Responsible Area if there is an issue about conflict of interest.
A person sometimes has secondary affiliations, e.g. to an interest
group or organization which derives a benefit from the work being
carried out. Such affiliations are rarely disclosed. There is an
assumption that the disclosure of primary affiliation is enough to
determine the interests of a person.
It has been said that participation in the IETF is on individual
basis. If the stakes are high enough, a person might align himself/
herself on a position influenced by external parties.
Moonesamy Expires February 5, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WG Consensus August 2012
3. Last Call
An IETF Last Call is a way to determine the consensus of the IETF
community. Issues which are not considered as adequately addressed
are raised during a Last Call and can be the cause of heated
discussions.
It is up to IETF participants to send comments to explain why a
proposed action should not be taken. The decision taken by the IESG
is generally based on the substantive comments submitted by IETF
participants.
4. Security Considerations
By failing to identify the issues, a working group might overlook
security concerns. A working group relies on its participants to
perform "due diligence".
5. IANA Considerations
This document contains no IANA actions.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for reviewing this document.
Appendix A. Birds of a feather
A Birds of a Feather (BoF) is a session at an IETF meeting which
permits "market research" and technical "brainstorming". It can be
used to determine whether there is enough interest and focus in a
subject to warrant the formation of a working group. There are
discussions on a mailing list before the BoF to explore the issues
and for the participants to share their views about a common
approach.
Participants are not always enthusiastic to review working group
drafts; they demonstrate interest to work during this initial stage
or when a working group is being closed.
Mailing list discussions before the formation of a working group
generally turn into debates about technical decisions. Although such
discussions could be seen as an exploration of the issues, there is a
loss of focus as participants spend time on minute details. It can
Moonesamy Expires February 5, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WG Consensus August 2012
be easier to reach rough consensus if participants were to explain
what they want and suggest an approach which is aligned with their
interests while taking into account the interests of the group.
Sometimes some participants are just not listening to what other
participants are saying. Somebody needs to help shape the discussion
when that happens.
Author's Address
S. Moonesamy
76, Ylang Ylang Avenue
Quatre Bornes
Mauritius
Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com
Moonesamy Expires February 5, 2013 [Page 6]
