>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hallam-Baker,> There is another problem to do with consensus and
Hallam-Baker,> the status quo. Say we have a situation where a
Hallam-Baker,> clear majority of a working group believes that a
Hallam-Baker,> spec is unworkable unless a particular change is
Hallam-Baker,> made. A small minority opposes the change for
Hallam-Baker,> ideological reasons.
Hallam-Baker,> Should the outcome in this case be:
Hallam-Baker,> 1) Neither proposal can advance until there is
Hallam-Baker,> consensus
Steve answered part of this.
If the minority is large enough--and I think that reasonably small is
large enough--then I think 1) is the right outcome.
Often you can get consensus on a way to break the deadlock even if you
can't get consensus on the issue directly.
There are a lot of things you as a chair can do to try and break these
deadlocks. Ultimately, though, if you can't get consensus you can't
get consensus.
I realize we disagree on this point, but ideology is a fine reason in
my mind to fail to have consensus.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf