Hi! Yes. Also RFC7282 says:
> One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus > > Section 3 discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had > been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). > Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight > vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, > that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered! So do we have real consensus? 01.07.2015, 12:25, "Jim Reid" <[email protected]>: > On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:04, Aleksey Bulgakov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. >> Right? > > No, no and no. The WG made (or is making) the decision in the usual manner: > by consensus. The WG's co-chairs are responsible for determining when the WG > has reached consensus. The opinion of every member of the WG matters and is > taken into account in that consensus determination. Provided of course the WG > member expresses their opinion and does so in a reasonable way (ie no > abusive/insulting language or ad-hominem attacks). > > Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Please read RFC7282. > Here's a quote from that: "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are > addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". Although this RFC is for the > IETF's decision making its principles apply to RIPE and other Internet > organisations too. > > In the case of 2015-01, we're at the point where the WG needs to decide if > all the issues in the proposal have been addressed even if some of them not > have not been accommodated. IMO we have reached that point. YMMV. -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
