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

[Brian E Carpenter]

"In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. "

Doesn't that define rough consensus?

   Brian

James Seng wrote:
> 
> 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland