[sig-policy] What is consensus ?
I'm sure you followed my previous two emails. For this reason I've changed
the subject of this thread. I really think there is an important issue here.
I'm not talking any more about proposal A or B, just using them as possible
examples of what I think raises some questions that can help to improve our
work and actually make your work as a chair easier (hopefully).
I think we need to find a good definition for consensus.
We need to find then if consensus is the right think or we need an
alternative.
I think we don't want just "majority" but I think also "unanimity" is
impossible.
We can't expect everyone to agree, it will be ideal, but almost impossible
to happen with every proposal.
Just some thoughts. I hope to heard what other folks think !
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
> Responder a: <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
> Fecha: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:04:54 +0900
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
> CC: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG meeting yesterday
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> Hope you had safe trip to home.
>
> As you pointed out consensus is not unanimity. But not simple majority
> decision either. Regarding your first proposal, namely prop-042, there
> was a support to your proposal but was strong objections as well. In
> addition to that, according to show of hands there was a few more
> persons other than who spoke in front of a mike who were opposed to your
> proposal.
>
> Thus I couldn't declare that was a consensus.
>
> I hope we can discuss more on the proposal in advance in future, to have
> more productive discussion in the meeting place. I will try to do my
> best to facilitate it.
>
> thanks and best regards,
> Toshi
> --
> Toshiyuki Hosaka
> JPNIC
>
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote (2007/03/02 18:03):
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Regarding the Policy SIG yesterday and more specifically proposal 042, after
>> getting some more feedback from some other folks and also sleeping on it,
>> I've to raise some concerns.
>>
>> I know measuring consensus is not easy, but clearly consensus is not
>> unanimity and there was a clear superior number of people in favor than
>> opposing the proposal.
>>
>> Furthermore, there were no negative comments in the mail exploder since it
>> was presented.
>>
>> So, with all the respect, I think the achievement of consensus for this
>> policy should be reconsidered. Otherwise, we could also think that the
>> consensus in previous meetings, for other policy proposals (not naming any
>> in particular), has also never reached, as always there were comments and
>> votes against, and the consensus was declared when a similar proportion of
>> people was in favor vs. against.
>>
>> Moreover, in my opinion, yesterday the personal and unpleasant attacks that
>> a single participant launched against me (not the proposals) created a clear
>> situation of breach of the process and some folks may have been predisposed
>> against the proponent, and thus influenced some which may have decided not
>> to vote at all, or even voting against the proposals as a way to vote
>> "against" the proponent, which is not the intent of the process.
>>
>> I expect that this kind of situation is not allowed in future meetings,
>> hopefully. I think I was very kind in front of the attacks received, and
>> under other situations, such as using my own native language instead of
>> English, could have taken a very different reaction and become even more
>> rude that the attacker itself, which I not did also in order to respect the
>> rest of participants and try to play a fair game despite the situation.
>>
>> It is clear that, all kind of respectful critics to discuss any proposal
>> merits are part of the process, are needed and welcome, and I fully support
>> them. However unpleasant comments as we had yesterday which even reached to
>> the point of not allowing the presenter to continue defending the proposal.
>>
>> This has also a very negative impact towards the process and the people
>> participating, which under this kind of pressure could consider that is not
>> worth to invest the time in submitting a proposal and defending it, as they
>> can be "freely" attacked, specially in regions where because cultural
>> reasons, difficulties with the language, or any other reasons, participants
>> are typically shy and not precisely prone to speak up. I think it is a clear
>> manipulation of the process.
>>
>> I also want to clarify the reason I had 4 proposals, as this was part of the
>> attack. Before the previous meeting I submitted a single proposal, and it
>> seems that it was considered complex to understand and to decide about it,
>> so following staff recommendations, I decided to split it in several, in
>> order to help the people to read them one by one and consider each part as a
>> simpler piece.
>>
>> Also, part of the attack was about the waste of time, and in fact I think we
>> used about 60% of the time that was originally allocated for this. It was
>> not my intend to ask anyone to waste their time, but more on the other way,
>> facilitate all to understand the proposal and take a position about it, and
>> this is part of the process.
>>
>> I believe that the most important think in this process is not to discourage
>> people, and what happened yesterday is clearly doing so. The process is not
>> set for or to allow attack people presenting, otherwise we are measuring the
>> presenter merits, not the proposal ones.
>>
>> And last, but not least, in my humble opinion, delaying a proposal that in
>> my opinion reached consensus can be actually considered as a real "denial of
>> service" attack to the process and it means that all spend our time in
>> discussing it again when it is not really needed and acting unfairly among
>> different proposals.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>
>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
>
>
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.