In article <CAHBU6itTE9Hb5Ge4FLdCviGJKfG36xPBV72Zn+guz82yDJ8EEw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >In practice it means that the chair(s) declared rough consensus and nobody >dissented violently enough to informally move the needle or formally launch >an appeal. Agreed. In my experience, ordinary consensus means that a group reached agreement without dissent. That doesn't mean that everyone supported the conclusion, but nobody disagreed enough to stop it. Quakers, who do not describe their process as consensus although everyone else does, refer to that as "standing aside" as a decision is agreed. Our consensus is different in that WG chairs or other quasi-authorities declare that we're close enough, and people who disagree are considered to be standing aside unless they disagree loudly and persuasively.* Personally, I've had lots of situations in the IETF where I was in the rough, I thought a decision was not the best but I wasn't so certain that I was willing to derail it. R's, John * - just loudly isn't enough, although I know a few people who think it is -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly