Hi Quynh,
[switched reply to other mailing list]
At 09:37 AM 15-01-2025, Quynh Dang wrote:
I have not advocated against "rough consensus".
The problem is that "rough consensus" is so broadly or vaguely
defined. So consensus calls can be made based on inconsistent
"policies" or "unknown rules/policies" and many people might feel
that they are treated unfairly in many consensus calls and they
could have a question in their head: why did the chairs do that to
me ? So the problem makes the job of the chairs so hard and stressful.
Defining a minimum percentage of votes to have the consensus would
take care of the problem and the chairs at the IETF would love that.
On one hand, it is easy to understand how a decision was taken when
it is based on votes as people are generally familiar with the
concept. On the other hand, people might view the decision-making as
vague when it is said to have "rough consensus". This is where a
person might view the decision-making as wrong.
Here's a thread which mentioned voting:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/NY0IC2yJY8ejabMd3-ISjv09sN4/
I don't have any interest in the work. I also don't have a strong
opinion of how the group of people do the work. Looking at it from
the outside, I'd say that the group of people seem happy with how the
group works.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
