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

[James Seng]

Ignore the solutionism portion. I am trying to point out that informal 
definition of rough consensus has been stretched too far.

A Chair handwaving and say 'rough consenus, you know, is..well, you 
know, consensus which is rough so not everyone may agree' may works when 
we are much smaller.

But it dont build confidences in the Chairs. Chairs ultimately suffer 
the bulk of the attack from the people who disagree.

Personally, I seen lots of people angry & upset over the rough 
consensus. I have people telling me 'I spend 3 years of my time, 
travelling to every IETF and I am disillusioned now and will not attend 
anymore'. And they dont.

Now, you may say that is their problem...Part of it yes. But could part 
of it be our problem?

-James Seng

> 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.
> 
>