rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")

James Seng jseng at
Fri Jun 27 04:43:09 CEST 2003

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 

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

[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:

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list