On 06/23/2011 04:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> [ ... ] but my reading was that a
> few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was
> rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection"
> otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong.
I don't think anybody has a particularly rigorous working
definition of "rough consensus" and it leaves the door open
for this sort of disagreement.
I also think that institutional navel-gazing around this stuff has
repeatedly proven to be fruitless and that maybe people who are
calling consensus should probably talk amongst themselves about
what they mean by "consensus" and how it differs from voting.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf