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

[James Seng]

In some cases, it is easy to differential. But in most cases, it is a 
fuzzy line.

For example, a proposal which have most people supportive but a couple 
of objections, do we move forward? In general, the answer is "yes".

But what if the couple of objections involves all the major vendors for 
that protocol. Do we still move forward a proposal we know which will 
not be deploy at all?

Another example, a proposal have only a handful of people supporting it 
passionly but the rest of the group is in the class 'don't care but no 
object', 'dont like it but wont bother to object', 'finds the whole 
excerise waste of time'.

So when you call for a hum, you get some very loud hum but still weak. 
You call for objections, silent. Do you move forward?

<solutionism>
So basically, there are a lot of factors influencing whether the Chairs 
will declare rough consensus or not. While I feel the Chairs should 
still have pregorative to decide when to move forward, the consideration 
should be captured and make clearer to the participants so that people 
wont scream so much when the Chairs decided to move (or decided not to 
move).
</solutionism>

-James Seng

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> "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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>