IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 6756611E8137 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 o00FOe8-zj8E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B92F11E8132 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1309; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381291702; x=1382501302; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=0l9ANiWou5k+xcu4YW/nAQg14P1E7hfLiy6O94TTBjQ=; b=hNdIc2bwkUT2QbtZ7PoFFwLsxvJsAESNVPJUUpRPJq9lyxUlcOIj6O4y vQ1h9rEdr85YQ3LqP9BWUecPLYlfLQVGqTuS85jxKpJl+fwr21QgtBJeP W/Cld0yPo4fKWKyLWTiOVS1HJyExxFss5VuOKNIuSUIS6yjrvsCQaEdZw M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFALzVVFKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagweBCsEwgSQWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgiGQshESUCBA4FCAaHZgMJBq9XDYlrjFiCOzEHgx+BBAOQKYEwhECOM4U2gWaBPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,1060,1371081600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="269761375"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 04:08:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9948LL7001569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 04:08:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:08:21 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
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
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHOxH03J/+EIBd6jESdU5Pb3tvilZnsCI6AgAANnwA=
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 04:08:21 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA60386@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <5254CC15.3050802@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.115]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F308CC4-9AD1-4848-AD0C-E6CA5C53D68A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <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 04:08:30 -0000

On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've done a lot of work on consensus over the years and I think
> this is fundamentally correct, although I'd amend the last sentence
> to something along the lines of "While we may not all agree, those
> who disagree can live with it."  That is to say, it's not a binary
> question, and sometimes things we disagree with just aren't
> showstoppers.  (I'd like to see people take that position more
> often - for some reason a lot of people seem to take disagreement
> as a reason to block a decision even when it doesn't matter that
> much).

wfm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email