rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")

[James Seng]

Maybe lets put this particular case aside and look at the more general 
problem:

"What is rough consensus?" How rough is "rough"?

Unfortunately, this was not particular well-defined even tho it is one 
of our core principle. Could we tag this as a problem in the 
problem-statement?

I remember I asked this questions before when I am a newbie in IETF. The 
general answer of "rough consensus" are super-super majority.

The general figure is >75%-80% but bear in mind that we dont "vote", 
absolute figures isnt the way to go. We also need to take those who are 
"neutral" into considering as "neutral but wont object" and "no but wont 
object strongly" are important swing factor.

If we can get a rough consensus on what is "rough consensus", then 
perhaps we could avoid a lot of misunderstanding.

-James Seng

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Count the votes as 12:2 or 12:9 there was a clear majority for OPT in and
> the 7 who said no but were willing to stand asside for the sake of forward
> progress.
> 
> However you count them a clear majority of the group believes that the
> DNSSEC specs as currently defined are broken and are in need of fixing. Why
> then are ANY drafts being forwarded to the IESG?