On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > There are currently 463 members of the RRG, based on the > mailing list membership > If only two people responded, I'd conclude that the rest didn't > care and thus it was acceptable. Yes, that counts as rough consensus.
Yikes! Tony, here's what our old friend Webster has to say about consensus: consensus n. 1 an opinion held by all or most 2 general agreement, esp. in opinion The notion that because the other 461 subscribers of the list were not offended enough to respond constitutes consensus in favor defies the plain English meaning of the word consensus. Last year, I and most of the rest of the group ignored your declaration of consensus on "fix it for IPv6 first" and continued focusing solely on approaches which work for IPv4. I hope you find a better way to evaluate consensus but as it stands I'll ignore this one too. For the record, if you were paying attention, the closest to the actual consensus was roughly: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Dow Street <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not think agreeing to, or perhaps > divining, the "pure" definition for "locator" moves us very far along the > path toward a solution. At the start of this discussion I did, but I don't > now +1. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
