rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")

[James Seng]

I believe the general problem is our current process of letting wg 
chairs determine rough consensus without a general definition. (Yes, I 
know it is a feature too :P)

Since people have different opinion of the "rough consensus", those 
(especially the doc authors or someone with more then casual 
interest[1])  who disagree with the chair become resentful of the IETF 
process.

Personally, I already lost count how many times it happens. It is not 
healty.

[1] "more then casual interest" != vested interest. (See Keith v.s NAT, 
no offense intended :-)

-James Seng

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This has been a very interesting discussion, and I beleive that
> it is important that the details of this issue be debated and resolved.
> I do not believe that should be done on this list.  It was good to get
> the problem discussed so that people could do an abstraction of it
> for the problem statement, but I would like to avoid dwelling on  the
> specific arguments relating to it any longer.
> 
> At this point  I ask that people concentrate on the general language
> for the problem statement so that we can make sure that the problem
> is reflected adequately in  the problem statement.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Avri
> co-chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On torsdag, jun 26, 2003, at 13:45 Asia/Seoul, Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>