{"draft":"draft-resnick-on-consensus-07","doc_id":"RFC7282","title":"On Consensus and Humming in the IETF","authors":["P. Resnick"],"format":["ASCII","HTML"],"page_count":"19","pub_status":"INFORMATIONAL","status":"INFORMATIONAL","source":"IETF - NON WORKING GROUP","abstract":"The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through\r\na consensus process, taking into account the different views among\r\nIETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on\r\ntechnical matters.  In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run\r\nby a \"majority rule\" philosophy.  This is why we engage in rituals\r\nlike \"humming\" instead of voting.  However, more and more of our\r\nactions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are\r\nletting the majority win the day without consideration of minority\r\nconcerns.  This document explains some features of rough consensus,\r\nwhat is not rough consensus, how we have gotten away from it, how we\r\nmight think about it differently, and the things we can do in order\r\nto really achieve rough consensus.\r\n\r\nNote: This document is quite consciously being put forward as\r\nInformational.  It does not propose to change any IETF processes and\r\nis therefore not a BCP.  It is simply a collection of principles,\r\nhopefully around which the IETF can come to (at least rough)\r\nconsensus.","pub_date":"June 2014","keywords":["accommodate","agree","agreement","appease","argue","argument","balloting","capitulated","capitulation","chair","choice","choose","coin","compromise","count","decide","decision","disagree","disagreement","hands","horse-trade","horse-trading","hum","issue","judge","judging","king","majority","member","minority","object","objection","objector","president","rough","unaddressed","vote","voting","working group"],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":[],"updated_by":[],"see_also":[],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC7282","errata_url":"https:\/\/www.rfc-editor.org\/errata\/rfc7282"}