> On 15 Jan 2018, at 10:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no > objections
Jordi, whatever definition of consensus someone chooses is up to them. That doesn't mean it's right or the one that everybody else has to adopt. [We decide the definition of consensus by consensus. :-)] Consensus does not mean there have to be no objections. That's unanimous consensus. There's a difference. An important difference. Maybe something is getting lost in translation? ie the Spanish for "consensus" means something similar to the definition you're using. There can be consensus in RIPE (and other fora such as IETF and ICANN) even when there are objections. RFC7282 goes into this in great detail. If we relied on unanimous consensus for decisions, nothing would ever get done because anyone would have a veto that could block progress. And in a very diverse community like RIPE, it'll be impossible for everyone to agree on everything.
