[ncc-services-wg] How to determine consensus for a proposal.

	Sascha,

As this is now a generic thread and have nothing to do with 2012-08 I have changed the topic. 

On 17 okt 2013, at 12:26, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote:
>> chair declares consensus when the working group is not unanimously
>> supporting a policy proposal then that basis for that decision is
>> carefully evaluated. And there is always the option to appeal a
>> decision made by a working group chair. The chairs are volunteers
>> working for their working group community after all.
> 
> Sure, but this proposal fundamentally changes the relationship between a sponsoring LIR and a resource holder in the guise of "just adding another field to the inet[6]num object". I feel that such change deserves a better argumentation and defence than just some hand-wavy "oh, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY!!1!" ideological rhetoric.
> I find it interesting how, with some proposals, every hair is split
> three ways, every minor wording change endlessly debated and with others any objection is swept off the table because "doesn't matter,
> it's more transparent".

Hoe much discussion and how detail a proposal receives is up to the members of the working group and not the chairs. I can't substantiate this but my impression is that the detailed level of discussion has more to do with how complex a proposal is than anything else. 

> A couple things that would make the PDP more palatable:
> 
> - would it be too much of an extra burden on the WG-chairs to summarise, briefly, how they arrived at the decision that consensus
> has been achieved/not achieved? (much like a judge would substantiate
> how they arrived at a given verdict but maybe not quite so verbose)

I think writing a "verdict" might be hard. Consensus is when, as described in draft-resnick-on-consensus, all issues as been addressed but not accommodated. I can only speak for this working group, but we at least go through the archives to make sure this is the case, and we then look at how people have argued and if in favor or against. This is not voting, but determining that there is wide support, and that all issues have been addressed. In this particular proposal I believe it would have passed if using majority voting, consensus etc. But it wasn't unanimous. If the WG-chairs where to have to distill all concerns raised against a proposal, how they where addressed and if they where accommodated, yes that would be a lot of work. 

Again, the WG chairs decisions are being screened by the other WG chairs, and there is an appeals procedure. 

> - stop the +1 BS. Every voice in support *or* against a proposal to, at
> least, give a brief reasoning why. I consider it disrespectful if one
> spends much time composing and arguing an objection if it can be
> overridden by "+1". It's changing the way Internet resources are being
> managed, not godsdamn Facebook.


I at least interpret the +1 (or -1 or don't support comments) as the view of someone who has read a proposal and either believes it adds value or makes a policy "better", or not. I don't see how that would need to be elaborated more, and in most cases it probably even wouldn't. But if you could give more examples perhaps that would help. 

Best regards,

- kurtis -




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20131017/4278dc53/attachment.sig>