rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")

Brian E Carpenter brian at
Wed Jun 25 23:43:56 CEST 2003

Phill, you seem to be extrapolating from one case to a general
statement that many of us would disagree with.

In terms of the general determination of rough consensus, I would
add to the definition in 2418, which is entirely workable in my
experience, that if 20 people "vote" the same way, but the WG chair
knows that they all work for the same organization or for associated 
organizations, those 20 "votes" are likely to be heavily discounted
in evaluating the RFC 2418 criteria. That's why we give discretion
to the WG chairs, and it's because we give them discretion that
there is an appeal mechanism *which no AD can block*.


"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote:
> > But please spare a thought for the wg chairs too. They are in
> > this "damn if you do, damn if you dont" position...
> The chair was the person who created the situation. There would
> have been no debate at all if he had not manipulated the process
> repeatedly.
> If the chair in question had not also been on the IESG I suspect
> that he would not have been allowed to behave in the partisan
> manner he did.
> IETF - not open, not inclusive, not relevant.
>                 Phill

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list