Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

  Before anyone thinks that I am against the anti-harassment policy,
let me state up front that I am not. That said...

On Wed, November 6, 2013 7:23 am, Dave Crocker wrote:
[snip]
> For the anti-harassment policy, we happen to have pretty obvious and
> massively strong community support for developing the policy.  That we
> also have plenty of evidence that some folk will never be satisfied with
> whatever text emerges is a distraction.  Once those folk have had their
> say and the group has discussed their concnerns constructively and hass
> attempted to resolve the concerns, we are not obligated to please such
> folk.

  If there is actually "pretty obvious and massively strong support" then
there is not only rough consensus, there is some pretty solid consensus.
And then there's no need to assign a facilitator to track and resolve
issues. We're done.

  But the sentiment expressed above is unfortunate I think because it
dismisses dissent and just pay lip service to addressing the concerns
that dissent represents. You're talking about entering into a supposedly
consensus building process with the notion that the decision is already
made. That's a recipe for just pissing people off.

  Replace "the anti-harassment policy" with some policy you don't like
and then read it again as if I said it to you.

  Dan.