Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

[Sandy Wills <sandy at WEIJax.com>]

Ken Raeburn 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.
>
> If it's not a change, then there's no need for text suggesting how  the 
> IESG should judge consensus in this matter, is there?

Apparently not.

I entered into what looked to me like a discussion-becoming-an-argument 
with what seemed like a useful clarification of the "rules", but even 
the desirability of doing so seems to have to fight to establish 
"concensus".  That, to me, is more than I want to put on my plate.

I think I'll go back to lurking, and let those who are paid for this 
continue this discussion.

--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.


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