Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:35:11PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable.
Oh, it is (we had this discussion before) - at least for people that
I know have been around before, it signals "I agree with the arguments
the propers bring up why this is a useful way forward".
If all of a sudden 50 people that have never spoken up before would
show up and try to game a discussion by just posting "+1", I wouldn't
consider this an overly strong argument either - right. This is part of
the WG chair's job when judging consensus.
Of course, part of "*rough* consensus" is that objections *have been
addressed* - so if someone posts a "-1" without specifics, it is impossible
to address these not-voiced objections, and putting too much weight on
such a mail would make it very easy to kill every single policy proposal
(and so we don't).
There is no need to address supporting arguments, so indeed, the process
is fairly asymmetric here.
Of course a supporting voice that actually explains why the poster thinks
this is a good way forward, with arguments that are not in the proposal
itself, is even stronger - so thanks to Tore for making a good point.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgpABIlBteACS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
