The inner comment, does not match my memory of the discussions.
Theodore Tso wrote:
Attributed to Fred Baker:
I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion
that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a
90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus. I think we
have to say what the role and reach of the confirming body is, which
may require us to think hard about what it means to have "rough
consensus".
I'm not sure it was 90/10 consensus; at least in this recent
discussion, there certainly have been a rather wide range of opinions
on this list, from people like Mike St. John's with one view, and
Steve Kent with another.
- Ted
There were a number of issues on which no consensus was reached, or on
which there was not consensus to make a change. I don't think any of
those were anywhere near as close as 90/10. Some of the "don't change"
conclusions were probably a significant majority against the change.
But I don't think there was ever a case that I saw where I thought 80
(much less 90) percent of the room wanted something, but the chairs
ruled that there was no consensus.
My concern about re-opening the document is in fact that opinions were
very divided. Getting agreement on any change is going to be a lot of
work, if it succeeds at all. Try to get rough consensus on clear words
on something as divisive as how much oversight the confirming bodies
should perform seems a recipe for failure.
Yours,
Joel
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf