rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")
jseng at pobox.org.sg
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) who disagree with the chair become resentful of the IETF
Personally, I already lost count how many times it happens. It is not
 "more then casual interest" != vested interest. (See Keith v.s NAT,
no offense intended :-)
Avri Doria wrote:
> 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.
> On torsdag, jun 26, 2003, at 13:45 Asia/Seoul, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
More information about the Problem-statement