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

[Scott W Brim]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 07:19:05PM +0800, James Seng allegedly 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.

I don't know if that's preferable.  The situations encountered are so
different, even within a single working group.  I think that trying to
define rough consensus better than we have already will disregard the
innate, and rather excellent, understanding of groups and group
consensus which we have been developing for many millions of years.