Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

ietf

Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

2006-01-04 09:23:28

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough consensus is to
leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs (if relevant)
and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is significant.


That is what were asking for in this case.

Stewart

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
objection to proposed change to "consensus", Randy Presuhn Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Jeffrey Hutzelman Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Brian E Carpenter Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Stewart Bryant <= RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Gray, Eric Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Spencer Dawkins RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Yaakov Stein Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Jari Arkko RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Gray, Eric Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Sandy Wills Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Stephen Sprunk Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", grenville armitage Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Sandy Wills Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", grenville armitage

Previous by Date:	Re: bozoproofing the net, was The Value of Reputation, Eric Rescorla
Next by Date:	Re: Alternative formats for IDs, Theodore Ts'o
Previous by Thread:	Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Brian E Carpenter
Next by Thread:	RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Gray, Eric
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]