IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 09 October 2013 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E9A21E80CE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10ivdVM29OeV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AA711E812B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [112.208.84.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DDB618014F6; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:54:04 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5254EF77.903@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:53:59 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
References: <20131007164829.16131.73595.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131008054041.0d74aa88@resistor.net> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA5FFA8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <5254CC15.3050802@gmail.com> <5254E7A3.8050507@pi.nu> <5254E9EF.6010807@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5254E9EF.6010807@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:54:15 -0000

On 2013-10-09 13:30, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 10/8/13 9:20 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> FWIW - my personal way of thinking about consensus vs. rough consensus,
>> please note that it my personal view not a definition.
>>
>> Consensus - An agreement by everyone in a group that a proposed
>>              solution is the best of all of all possible solutions
>>
>> Rough consensus - An agreement by almost everyone that the proposed
                solution is good enough for everyone to live with.
>
> That's a lot like voting, I think.

Well - if you say so, but then we don't have even a rough consensus on
what consensus and rough consensus means.

Note I talked about what a group need to reach to be able to say that
there is "consensus" or "rough consensus". Not how it is measured, in
IETF we trust the wg chairs to correctly judge if we have reached a
rough consensus.

/Loa

>
> Melinda
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email