On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
Asserting that rough consensus exists, without actually asking people
to say they *agree" requires that the person making the assertion
typically be correct. In other words, it means that I need to feel
pretty certain of the group preference. In this case, I do. But note
that my being wrong is easily dealt with: just develop rough consensus
to reverse the decision. If the group really does not want to operate
under these rules, it will be trivial to get that decision reversed.
I see conflicts in above when same person(s) asserts the rules, asks if
there is rough consensus against it and then decides if there is such
rought consensus. I believe that no matter how strongly you feel about it,
the rough consensus needs to be formed and not asserted based on lock of
activity on the subject.
So since you asked view on this subject - leave your rules for WG and
keep only RFC3184 as applicable to this group at this time - BoF is
supposed to be loosely organized group, more open to debate then WG
(which has clear written goals). In other words, I'm against having
the rules as they are written apply to MASS at this time.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net