On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
It is true that consensus (rough or otherwise) is a state, and that state can
always change. But consensus should be on a particular point and it must be
relatively stable; it shouldn't be claimed on some broad platitude for which
nobody knows the details, and it shouldn't change unless new information is
brought into the mix.
Why not? Claiming consensus on a broad platitude may well be very constructive
from the perspective of gaining momentum in actually doing something, not only
within the IETF but outside of the IETF. It's true that it doesn't have much
effect beyond that, but just because a thing has only effect A and not effect B
does not mean that it has no effect.