Re: rough consensus and running code [was: Federation protocols]

On 13 June 2013 15:01, Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl>wrote:
>
>> Dnia czwartek, 13 czerwca 2013 o 02:07:50 Melvin Carvalho napisał(a):
>>
>> > On 13 June 2013 00:58, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>> > > Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
>> > >>  Yup... rough consensus and running code, then the market tends to
>> drive
>> > >>
>> > >>> what gets adopted.
>> > >>
>> > >> What the rough consensus is, please, can you tell me? Or point to a
>> > >> document
>> > >> that describes it?
>> >
>> >
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/?include_text=1
>>
>> As I already stated, I do understand what a rough consensus is in general.
>>
>> I am having hard time finding out what the rough consensus is in the
>> particular case of federated social web -- apart from "it's impossible
>> and not
>> doable, leave it", but if it is indeed the rough consensus of this list,
>> why
>> does this list even exist?
>>
>>
Consensus not about taking the most popular views in a group, although very
often over time the popular view is also the technically best solution.
It's about finding a solution that all the stakeholders can live with, and
that there are no legitimate technical objections to.  However, solutions
do not exist in a vacuum.  Without implementations, the argument for a
particular approach is less compelling.  These are the two ingredients that
make a standard.  We are fortunate in the W3C FSW Group now to have a few
standards that fulfil these criteria and people that have familiarity with
them.  There's also a breeding ground to incubate new ideas, standards and
implementations to standards quality.

Pete Resnick's excellent document (above) does a great job describing the
consensus process, with examples.



>
> That's not what people are saying. I've seen several people explain their
> perspectives on how they are trying to achieve the same end goal as you,
> they've tried to answer your initial questions with their honest take on
> why we are where we are, why previous attempts have failed,  and what
> they've learned from it - what they are working on right now -etc.
>
> It begins to lower the mutual value of this discussion when you put words
> in peoples mouths, and accuse anyone that doesn't agree with you that they
> are saying it's all impossible and that they are advocating not do anything.
>
>
>