> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is > just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into > the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters. > > Not sure if you see my point?
That's very true. I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. :-) Your reading/understanding of the PDP is flawed Jordi. RIPE642 explicitly says a proposal may not reach consensus. Or even get to a point where a consensus decision needs to be taken. So it's simply wrong to say every proposal can always reach consensus. Common sense should tell you that too. You should also be aware that we've had policy proposals which have died one way or another. They didn't reach consensus. QED. And yes, in theory it's possible for a charlatan to "stack the deck" by having their (ficticious) friends express support for a proposal. [That's an unwelcome side effect of having an open community with no membership/eligibility criteria.] This is where the sound judgement of the WG's chair comes in. They should be able to detect these kinds of manipulations and take appropriate action. There are further checks and balances too. The appeals procedure mean a dodgy consensus determination can be scrutinised by the WGCC and the RIPE chairman.
