[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i've been reflecting on where we're at and have arrived at two key words i want 
us to focus on in preparation for the call tomorrow -- "objections" and 
"precision"

we've heard back from the General Counsel that they would like to see more 
precision in our request for a legal review.  i wrote a response on the spur of 
the moment that i'm regretting now.  

homework assignment:  try to come up with language that clarifies what we are 
asking the GC to do, and also come up with language that limits the scope of 
that effort to something that is achievable within reasonable time and budget.

i'm feeling the need to draw this part of the conversation to a close and am 
hoping that we can get this last visit to the privacy issue completed on the 
call tomorrow.  if, at the end of the call, we still are not there, i'm going 
to ask the group's permission to go off and do the duty of the Chair, which is 
to reflect on the state of our work with the following structure in mind.  

IETF - Consensus

    Credo

        Do's
            decisions are made by (more or less) consent of all participants
            the actual products of engineering trump theoretical designs

        Don'ts
            we don't let a single individual make the decisions
            nor do we let the majority dictate decisions
            nor do we allow decisions to be made in a vacuum without practical 
experience

        Require rough, not full consensus
            If the chair of a working group determines that a technical issue 
brought forward by an objector has been truly considered by the working group, 
and 
            the working group has made an informed decision that the objection 
has been answered or is not enough of a technical problem to prevent moving 
forward, 
            the chair can declare that there is rough consensus to go forward, 
the objection notwithstanding.

    Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement
    _determining_ consensus and _coming to_ consensus are different things than 
_having_ consensus
        Consensus is not when everyone is happy and agrees that the chosen 
solution is the best one
        Consensus is when everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the chosen 
solution, such that they no longer have specific objections to it
        Engineering always involves a set of tradeoffs.  It is almost certain 
that any time engineering choices need to be made, there will be options that 
appeal to some people that are not appealing to some others.  The key is to 
separate those choices that are simply unappealing from those that are truly 
problematic.


this outline is lifted from an IETF draft which seems like a good guideline.  
the full draft can be found here.

        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

this is why i want us to focus on "objections" and "precision" on our call. 

mikey

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature