ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Qualifying for NomCom

2016-04-07 13:35:34
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:

Right.   So that's not what "consensus" means.   Suggest you reread RFC
7282.   It's not normative, but I think it's helpful to reread when you
feel that you have failed to find consensus.   It contains some good advice
about getting to consensus.


Well let's see...

"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement..."  check.  There
was disagreement with the proposals, and no better ones presented available.

"Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
necessarily accommodated..." check.  I wasn't able to even address the
concerns raised, because they were valid, and again there were no solid
remedies proposed.

etc.

On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer than I
remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I, probably) construct an
RFC3933-style process experiment and let that run for a while.  If it works
well, we can codify it by adding it to RFC7437bis.  So I'll do that.  If
anyone wants to volunteer to collaborate on it, please contact me directly.

-MSK
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>