In article <CE300AD8-4A12-4A34-975E-CBF742A0230F@xxxxxxxxxx> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Reading this document surprised me, particularly this section: >https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practices-and-procedures#consensus What’s the difference between IETF >“rough consensus” and ISO “consensus” ? But there’s much good in the whole thing. That definition of consensus is the one that most of the world uses. A key part of it is that all of the participants need to respect the process enough to be willing to "stand aside" when they disagree with the result of the group, but believe a decision was made in good faith for plausible reasons. Blocking objections and appeals are kept for exceptional situations. Unfortunately, you only need a few people willing to die on every molehill to blow up a consensus process. IETF rough consensus more or less appoints WG chairs and the IESG to decide when the molehillers would have stood aside. R's, John
