I believe the status of the document issue was addressed elsewhere. On
the other point:
On 10/8/13 10:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
do you think that unanimity or "full consensus" is our ideal,
although an ideal that's not always reachable in practice? Or is our
ideal actually rough consensus (i.e., something like general agreement
without unanimity)?
If unanimity or "full consensus" is our ideal then we might expend more
energy to win over instransigent persons or those who are "in the rough"
than we would if rough consensus were our ideal. So I think it's
important to be clear on what we're aiming for.
Given the context of the document, that consensus is based on whether
all issues are addressed, I do think that unanimity is our theoretical
ideal: We do try to convince people that we *have* answered their issues
and give up (i.e., declare rough consensus) when we feel we have but
they're still not convinced. If rough consensus were the ideal, I think
it would encourage a habit of declaring things in the rough that have
not gotten real airing. ("Well, all we're really aiming for is rough
consensus, and I'm pretty sure Pete's issue has been addressed, so let's
just move along.")
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478