On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:05:12 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There is another problem to do with consensus and the status quo. > > Say we have a situation where a clear majority of a working group > believes that a spec is unworkable unless a particular change is > made. A small minority opposes the change for ideological reasons. > > Should the outcome in this case be: > > 1) Neither proposal can advance until there is consensus > 2) The status quo proposal trumps the position with majority support > 3) The majority position is adopted. > 4) Both proposals advance > > In the case that the proposal is an additional feature then 3 and 4 > are essentially the same. > > The problem here is that the positions that are most likely to be > held hostage by DISCUSS are cases like this one where there is a > clear majority in favor of change but the minority see absolutely no > reason to compromise because they consider that they hold an > effective veto, the majority can go hang. If it's a small enough minority, in theory that isn't enough to block progress. 2418 says IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf