On 06/23/2011 04:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > [ ... ] but my reading was that a > few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was > rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection" > otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong. I don't think anybody has a particularly rigorous working definition of "rough consensus" and it leaves the door open for this sort of disagreement. I also think that institutional navel-gazing around this stuff has repeatedly proven to be fruitless and that maybe people who are calling consensus should probably talk amongst themselves about what they mean by "consensus" and how it differs from voting. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf