Hi colleagues, Op 28 mei 2014, om 10:07 heeft Randy Bush <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
>> I think 100% fixed rule is not appropriate for our community, but do >> you have any idea to improve current description? > > i like the ietf draft to which i keep pointing [0] Yes, that is a very good document, and this part is crucial: "If the chair of a working group determines that a technical issue brought forward by an objector has been truly considered by the working group, and the working group has made an informed decision that the objection has been answered or is not enough of a technical problem to prevent moving forward, the chair can declare that there is rough consensus to go forward, the objection notwithstanding." Everybody's objection is heard and no objections are rejected without being duly considered. In the end it is the working group chair's responsibility to make sure that this happens and that the interests of the whole working group are taken into account. Not just the people pushing forward, not just the people that keep objecting, and certainly not just the loudest ones. Setting very strict rules is dangerous because then someone can try to game the system. Having solid principles duch as described in draft-resnick-on-consensus helps a lot and gives both the working group and its chairs guidance. As Resnick's draft says: "It describes a way of thinking about how we make our decisions." Being a good working group chair is not always an easy task. Cheers, Sander [0] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/ * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
