On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Re draft-resnick-on-consensus-06:
my problem with this document is that it misses out on what I've always considered essential ...
For me, "rough consensus" and "running code" should be taken together, not independently. I've always taken it as "rough consensus OF THOSE WITH running code".
I think we want to get the agreement of those who are going to implement and deploy systems which use the specification -- even if they're not in the room or not at the meeting or even not on the mailing list. Those who attend the meetings and participate on the lists may act as representatives, or might just have opinions...
I don't think the draft helps clarify this point, at all, since it dwells at length on "consensus" and "rough consensus" in terms of numbers independent of the nature of the source.
That is an exceedingly good point.