RFC 7282 – On Consensus and Humming in the IETF (2014)

While it may be of general interest to anyone interested in the IETF consensus processes, the primary audience for this document is those who have experience working in the IETF and are trying to understand and participate in the consensus-building process, and it is particularly aimed at generating thought and discussion among those who might lead a consensus discussion. "After all", thinks the chair, "Consensus is a matter of getting everyone to agree, so asking Resnick Informational [Page 4] RFC 7282 On Consensus June 2014 whether everyone agrees is what the chair ought to do. And if lots of people disagree, there's no consensus." But determining consensus and coming to consensus are different things than having consensus. There is also an important point to be made about reaching consensus and "Compromising": Unfortunately, the word "Compromise" gets used in two different ways, and though one sort of compromising to come to consensus is good, the other sort of compromising in order to achieve consensus can actually be harmful. Resnick Informational [Page 8] RFC 7282 On Consensus June 2014 It is important to recognize that this view of rough consensus is a change from the way it sometimes has been characterized in the IETF. RFC 1603 [RFC1603] described rough consensus as the "Dominant view" of the group: Working groups make decisions through a "Rough consensus" process. The above says that consensus can be "Determined" by balloting and humming, and there are certainly IETF folks who have thought of rough consensus as being primarily about the percentage of people who agree with a decision. Consensus is the path, not the destination We don't try to reach consensus in the IETF as an end in itself. To say immediately after the hum, "It sounds like we have rough consensus" and nothing else is at best being slipshod: What the chair really needs to say at that point is, "I believe the only objection we've heard is A, and I've heard answers from the group that fully address that issue. So, unless I hear a different objection than the one I've just described, I find that there is rough consensus to move on." That leaves the door open for someone to tell the chair that the objection was really on different grounds and they misevaluated, but it makes it clear that the chair has found rough consensus due to the discussion, not due to the hum.