IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 02 September 2009 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524233A6E44 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iw-+i6EjRj2b for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D783A6B3A for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ppp-68-120-198-98.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n82N6Djd016864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:06:19 -0700
Message-ID: <4A9EFA64.3080103@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:06:12 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
References: <20090831170006.GB15637@alinoe.com> <b8ef0a220908311108v5d8a2b72v45c759c6bf421971@mail.gmail.com> <20090831222934.GB29965@alinoe.com> <3a880e2c0908311606j16d2f75al478fe85345543e55@mail.gmail.com> <20090902125810.GA11930@alinoe.com> <b8ef0a220909020651s5efbd9d4hf79dc3da306d2193@mail.gmail.com> <20090902222400.GA6652@alinoe.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090902222400.GA6652@alinoe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:06:09 -0000

Carlo Wood wrote:
> What I meant was that this should be a collaborative community
> thing. If we can't get agreement over something serious then
> it is NOT a solution that one party walks away and the other
> gets their way.


The IETF has an established model for working group decision-making, known 
affectionately as "rough consensus".

It requires a collaborative process, and strong group agreement, but does not 
require agreement by everyone.

The difference between "unanimous" and "rough" is important, but easily forgotten.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email