Re: "Discuss" criteria

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]