Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills <sandy at WEIJax.com> 
wrote:

>     This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.  Many
> group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting
> any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any,
> after a period of free discussion.
>     It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks "if anyone
> objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace."  A CfC is assuming an
> agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to
> respond.  Any other response is undesired.

In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of "no", so we're into the 
much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus-deciders that the 
naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or convincing the ones who asked 
for the "consensus call" that despite their strongly held convictions, 
there are good reasons why we shouldn't just do what they want.....

The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed - or rather 
- succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no present proposal 
that enjoys a strong consensus.

                  Harald



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf