Hi Carlos,
Carlos Friaças wrote on 09/05/2020 22:25:
On Sat, 9 May 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 09/05/2020 15:23:
Having one might at least lay this discussion to rest once and for
all. I?ve seen variants of it for several years now.
But imagine if someone contacted a bunch of their colleagues and said:
"look, there's this policy proposal going on in RIPE AAWG and it would
be really great if you could just join up on the mailing list and add
in a +1, thanks!"
Therein lies the problem - or at least one of the problems - with
voting: it's wide open to manipulation.
Same goes for "it takes only 2 or 3 voices to break consensus".
Even if arguments are somewhat "creative"...
no, and in fact this is the point of consensus. It depends on informed
judgement and assessment, not a handful of dissenting voices, or people
shouting, or votes or anything else. It's worth reading RFC 7282.
There is a lot of wisdom in that document.
In the sense that you're concerned that there's stalemate regarding
some of these proposals, there isn't according to the PDP: no
consensus is a legitimate and clear outcome, and when there is no
consensus, the policy does not proceed.
The *proposal* does not proceed... the policy can already be in place,
but remains unchanged.
The existing reached consensus despite a number of dissenting voices :-)
Personally, I think the policy does more harm than good, but it is what
it is. I'm not going to put in a proposal to remove it because that
probably wouldn't reach consensus and it would end up wasting working
group time.
Nick
