On 6/23/11 6:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 06/23/2011 04:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> [ ... ] but my reading was that a >> few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was >> rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection" >> otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong. > > I don't think anybody has a particularly rigorous working > definition of "rough consensus" and it leaves the door open > for this sort of disagreement. > > I also think that institutional navel-gazing around this stuff has > repeatedly proven to be fruitless and that maybe people who are > calling consensus should probably talk amongst themselves about > what they mean by "consensus" and how it differs from voting.
Omphaloskepsis aside, I've been thinking about writing an I-D on the meaning of consensus, although I somehow doubt we'd be able to get consensus on the topic... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
