Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:49, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's probably worth mentioning that some people speaking in favor of
something does not rough consensus make. I put these provisional
requirement into the draft to try to distill out what was on the list to
see if they would *then*
achieve rough consensus. If it did not achieve rough consensus, I'd then
remove
it from the draft. From what I can tell -- and I'm not the chair here --
at least as many people are against this requirement as are for it,
which is not
generally considered to be rough consensus in my understanding.
That's true, but that presumes there is a rough consensus for the base
document that has never been established.
Remember that the base document here is the ssp-reqs and not
draft-allman-ssp. I think we're much closer to a basic consensus
on the former, but not the latter.
So you're both correct in what you say above.
> If opinion is split then there is
neither consensus to add it nor consensus to take it out. Since the point of
departure has never been agreed, I don't think there is a basis for making a
presumption that consensus is required to move in one direction more than the
other.
There are some close-calls, where in the end Barry and I may have to
make a decision. In cases where some feature could be added
later on, my bias would be to omit such features for now if opinion
seems split, but I'll take each as it comes.
Regards,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html