[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Sat Dec 21 01:59:37 UTC 2013

Rinalia,

I'm not Suzanne but from my personal IETF experience, I will
sketch my own answers to your questions.

On 21/12/2013 14:08, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> Dear Suzanne,
> 
> I appreciate your explanation of technical community norms and the benefits
> of the approach of rough consensus.  I find it helpful.
> 
> Can you further clarify on three  aspects?
> 
> 1. How would the issue of gaps in knowledge be addressed in the approach?

If someone makes comments that seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge,
ideally somebody will *politely* recall the missing facts. One does need
to avoid 'ad hominem' responses since nobody should be criticised
for lacking knowledge. And yes, this can prolong the discussion; it's
hard to set a time limit on such a discussion.

> 2. How would the process deal with concerns about capture by certain
> interests that may be overly present (trying not to use the word represent
> here) in the discussion.

That's why there's no formal voting. A specific concern is that richer
companies can send more people to face to face meetings, so a 'majority'
in a meeting is not indicative of much. The idea is to continue discussion
until all dissent has been stated and explained, but 100 people wearing the
same hat and dissenting on the same point might well be considered
insignificant against 20 people wearing assorted hats.

What is essential is the people who declare that rough consensus has been
achieved are generally respected individuals who suppress their own
opinion and their own affiliation. In the IETF we call those people
chairs and they are chosen with great care.

> 3. How would the concerns of those not present in the discussion be dealt
> with?  (let's assume their concerns/knowledge are important, may influence
> the direction of the discussion, but they are not able to participate for a
> variety of reasons)

That is why, at least in the IETF, formal evaluation of rough consensus takes
place on the mailing list and *not* in a face to face meeting. It's presumed
that anyone who wants to be heard is free to join the mailing list - that's
a key element. (Another advantage is that demagogic and emotional techniques,
and groupthink, seem to be less prevalent on mailing lists, or at least less
effective.)

An important step is the 'last call' message. For example:

"The chairs believe that the group has reached rough consensus that the value
of pi is exactly 3. If you disagree with this judgment, please reply to
the list, stating your reasons, by April 1st, 2014 at the latest."

Regards
    Brian

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Rinalia
> On Dec 21, 2013 2:24 AM, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 11:34 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I largely agree with Andrew's view of this issue.
>>>
>>> We have a multitude of issues in the IG space that could stand increased
>> understanding and improvement.  If we could focus on the issues and work
>> toward that increased understanding of the issue, the alternatives, and the
>> pros and cons of the alternatives, then we might be making progress toward
>> improving IG.
>>
>> Likewise, and not to put words in my colleagues' mouths but in hopes of
>> moving this line of thought forward….
>>
>>> Michael Gurstein and I had what I thought was a useful exchange a few
>> weeks ago.  The hypothesis that I think we tended to agree upon, more or
>> less (Michael, please correct me if you disagree), was the following
>> (somewhat simplified): that the fight over representation is really a proxy
>> war; the real fight -- the hidden fight -- is over different opinions on
>> issues, and the representation fight allows the issue fight to be hidden.
>>> To the extent that this is the case, the representation fight obstructs
>> getting to the issues and is counterproductive to our work.  Let's get
>> directly to the issues.  In doing so, let's realize that agreement on
>> issues cuts across stakeholder silos, and let's rethink how best to
>> structure these conversations.
>> I read this post, and have watched how the discussion has evolved,
>> particularly on the subject of "representation".
>>
>> One of the things that Andrew alluded to earlier in the thread was "rough
>> consensus" as a component of "do stuff; structure later." This aspect of
>> the suggestion being made hasn't been called out, but I think it's
>> critically important, for two reasons:
>>
>>         1. "rough consensus" as it's generally understood in a lot of
>> so-called "technical community" circles is not unanimity and does not
>> reduce to vote-counting. It means more or less that everyone's been heard,
>> everyone's had an equal chance to speak, and not everyone is completely
>> happy with the outcome but almost everyone can live with it.  It's a useful
>> concept for moving conversation forward in situations where the
>> participants adamantly refuse to appoint others to speak for them or
>> "represent" them….and yes, this is a big part of how we got the Internet we
>> have today on the technical side: there was a lot of personal interaction
>> and trust among the "pioneers," but assuming they always agreed on answers,
>> or even interests and priorities, would be inaccurate. They didn't, and
>> their successors don't.
>>         2. One of the features of the "rough consensus" approach is that
>> committees, working groups, and other subsets or their "leaders" do not
>> have to be "representative" in any conventional sense to serve the function
>> of moving the group towards recognizable and actionable consensus. The
>> question of whether a result has the support necessary to be actionable
>> within the group is moved from a question of *who* is making the decision
>> to *how* it's being made, with the entire group in a position to see and
>> judge where consensus is formed.
>>
>> It's possible to have significant levels of administrative effort expended
>> around forming and judging positions on issues, but one advantage of such
>> an approach is that it sidesteps the question of "representation" in the
>> process of getting to those issues. It's also somewhat self-limiting, in
>> that a steering committee or leader who consistently oversteps the will of
>> the group is likely to find themselves on the sharp end of a consensus that
>> they be replaced.
>>
>> Such an approach is not always appropriate, but I humbly suggest that for
>> the proposed function of the 1net steering committee, it's a good start.
>>
>> I think the 1net steering committee needs to be about "Let's get some
>> stuff done" (John Curran has provided several good descriptions of the kind
>> of stuff that needs doing, as have others), and letting the system evolve.
>> I'm lots less interested in who is on the steering committee, especially
>> initially, than I am in having them be open about what decisions they're
>> making and how. If a more formal steering committee and a more
>> representative set of participants needs to be invented, it seems
>> reasonable to expect we'll be able to tell and we'll be able to come up
>> with additional structure that might be needed.
>>
>> best,
>> Suzanne
>>
>>
>> Suzanne Woolf
>> (just another techie, speaking for myself alone)
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss