On Jul 27, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
As I've noted before, there are two approaches to doing group rough
consensus.
And these methods are used to help bring about rough consensus when
it is not easy to come by, not to prejudice the group into giving a
desired answer. You used (insisted upon) one method to deny one of
Phil's proposals, but used the opposite method for getting acceptance
of your proposal. This is commonly referred to as a "double standard".
I think William's notion that 2419 and 3934 refer to working groups
(therefore not being applicable, yet) is correct. Otherwise we
should abide by William's declaration of finding for rough consensus
that your proposal lacks rough consensus. Or perhaps Phil should
make a declaration of rough consensus.
Additionally, the question you put to the group titled "QUERY: Key
Server Choices" lacks the needed neutrality. It contains troubling
language like "Defining such a mechanism will take unknown resources
and time." Really? Bringing about DKIM as an RFC will also require
unknown resources and time. My commute home this evening will also
require unknown resources and time, though generally I can expect it
to take 45 minutes and cost one eighth of a tank of gas and a burst
blood vessel or two.
-andy