>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and
Ian> Consensus"):
>> Having such serious objections that have not been adequately
>> considered means you don't have rough consensus at least in the
>> ways I judge rough consensus.
Ian> Thanks for your thoughtful response and care when reading.
Ian> However, I'm afraid I think this is rather muddled thinking.
Ian> Consensus is a question about what proprtion of people hold
Ian> certain opinion. It doesn't involve a value judgement.
Ian> Whereas, `adequately considered' involves a value judgement.
Ah, yes, we do not agree on what consensus is.
I think I understand your position well at this point and I thank you
for sharinge.
While I think your view on what consensus is differs from the consensus
view of consensus, I can certainly see where you are coming from.
If there are areas where you think additional discussion would be
valuable, I'd be happy to engage. For this point though, I think I
understand our disagreement, and while I respect where you are coming
from I'll need to do what I think is best.
--Sam
