IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 06 November 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 E451F11E80FB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:24:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1ABAj0a7ejdY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:24:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CB021F9E9D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:24:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 258E318C10A; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:24:20 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process
Message-Id: <20131106172420.258E318C10A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:24:20 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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, 06 Nov 2013 17:24:26 -0000

    > From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>

    > I'm a fan of consensus decision-making processes and will generally -
    > but not always - advocate for their use. I think that this is one of
    > those "not always" cases.

I'm wondering if the translation of this is: 'it's OK in this case because I
(mostly) agree with the outcome', which of course will inevitably lead
(someday) to: 'if we ever do a non-consensus decision, and I'm on the losing
side of that one, I won't be anywhere near as happy that we threw out that
particular baby'.

Just one more variant of that old adage 'be careful what you wish for'.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email