On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I wouldn't want to insist that consensus can only form on the lists > > because a) that's not gonna fly, b) it would be very limiting of > > face-to-face meetings > > That then biases heavily towards those can attend in person. There's remote participation. Mind you, remote participants have time zone issues and daily work-life things to schedule around. The extent of the bias will depend on the semantics of confirmation. To me consensus confirmation means "consensus may change as if via de novo consensus call". That's practically indistinguishable from a consensus call, except that it comes with details of what the consensus of the subset of participants in the room was. Perhaps the issue is the word "confirmation"? That it tends to imply that the we're looking for a rubber stamp? That's just a matter of definitions. I'm open to saying it's a de novo consensus call, though obviously the post should come with details of what the consensus in the room was. > [...] > > And no, I’m not interested in a debate here - I’m asking to know > whether to bother at all. I've been burned by "consensus called in the room and I wasn't there" situations. That should not happen again, to me, to you, or to anyone. It seems that you agree. "I'm not interested in debate" comes across very rough. If I'm parsing the above correctly, it sounds like you're saying that if we were to call it a "consensus confirmation call" you'd take your ball and go home. There's no sense getting this upset about what to call the process by which we make a particular kind of bad situation not happen again. Nico --
