[Fwd: Re: rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")]

[James Seng]

There are two parts here : Rough consensus process and rough consensus 
itself.

RFC 2418 defines the process but leave the definition of rough consensus 
vague, leaving it to the chair.

I am not saying the process have problem. I am saying we need to clarify 
the latter so everyone at least have some baseline understanding of what 
"rough consensus" is.

-James Seng

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
>>the RFC 2418 definition is as follows (section 3.3):
>>
>>   Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
>>   IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
>>   this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
>>   working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
>>   "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
>>   persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
>>   can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
>>   which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
>>   of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
>>   better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
>>   consensus has been reached.
>>
>><solutionism>
>>how could this definition be modified to be more useful?
> 
> 
> I doubt if it can, unless we radically change our open door
> policy. 
>  
>    Brian
> 
> 
>></solutionism>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>