On 05/01/2018 10:05, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jan 4, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> but the basic point is that not everyone needs to agree to progress a document >> but a lot of people do (just what % was specifically not defined) > > The problem with this is that then it's just voting. That's the problem that Pete was trying to address in the document—there's too much of a culture of voting at the IETF, and this has some bad consequences, as we've seen. The working groups that (IMHO) do the best work tend more in the direction of doing things Pete's way. I think the point has always been that all technical objections, whether from a minority or even from a single person, have been discussed and that there is general agreement either to fix them or to let them slide. Which is of course a judgment call by the WG chairs; Pete's RFC offers a way to ensure that this judgment call is generally accepted by the community. You can't get away from words like "general" or "judgment". Brian