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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

I believe the status of the document issue was addressed elsewhere. On 
the other point:

On 10/8/13 10:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> do you think that unanimity or "full consensus" is our ideal,
> although an ideal that's not always reachable in practice? Or is our
> ideal actually rough consensus (i.e., something like general agreement
> without unanimity)?
>
> If unanimity or "full consensus" is our ideal then we might expend more
> energy to win over instransigent persons or those who are "in the rough"
> than we would if rough consensus were our ideal. So I think it's
> important to be clear on what we're aiming for.
>    

Given the context of the document, that consensus is based on whether 
all issues are addressed, I do think that unanimity is our theoretical 
ideal: We do try to convince people that we *have* answered their issues 
and give up (i.e., declare rough consensus) when we feel we have but 
they're still not convinced. If rough consensus were the ideal, I think 
it would encourage a habit of declaring things in the rough that have 
not gotten real airing. ("Well, all we're really aiming for is rough 
consensus, and I'm pretty sure Pete's issue has been addressed, so let's 
just move along.")

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]