On 1/4/18 12:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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. Right, exactly. Also, in consensus there's this notion of a process through which the group comes to agreement and that that process matters a lot. It's how buy-in is generated, etc. Unfortunately there's just a ton of voting being done in practice, and while a lot of that is the result of suboptimal chairing it's also the case that the unwillingness of some participants to say "I don't agree but I can live with it" tends to gum up the process. Consensus is actually pretty complicated and it's difficult to do at IETF scale, which is how we end up at "rough consensus" rather than consensus. Melinda
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature