On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/02/2011 19:22, Ronald Bonica wrote:
1)Because we do not vote in the IETF, the process for determining
consensus is squishy. A simple majority does not win the day. A few
strongly held objections backed by even a scintilla of technical
rational can increase the size of the super-majority required to declare
consensus. While it was not clear that the IETF has achieved consensus
regarding 6-to-4-historic, it also was not clear that the IETF had not
achieved consensus. In this case, we had a choice between spending
cycles arguing about consensus, or finding a solution that everybody
could live with.
IMO that is the wrong goal. Consensus does not mean universal agreement.
Trying to get "a solution that everybody could live with" all too often
results in a product with no operational value.
IMO you're thinking about this the wrong way. if a document is to be published
with IETF's imprimatur, it needs to adhere to IETF's rules. Those rules
require, for a standards action, at least rough community-wide consensus.
When a narrowly focused working group declares consensus within itself, that
clearly doesn't speak for the whole IETF. The fact that the consensus was
quite rough even within the v6ops group should have been understood as a sign
that the proposed action might not win consensus overall - especially given
that several of the objections came from non-operators who are not well
represented in v6ops.
Ietf mailing list