The inner comment, does not match my memory of the discussions. Theodore Tso wrote: > Attributed to Fred Baker: >> I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion >> that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a >> 90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus. I think we >> have to say what the role and reach of the confirming body is, which >> may require us to think hard about what it means to have "rough >> consensus". > > I'm not sure it was 90/10 consensus; at least in this recent > discussion, there certainly have been a rather wide range of opinions > on this list, from people like Mike St. John's with one view, and > Steve Kent with another. > > - Ted
There were a number of issues on which no consensus was reached, or on which there was not consensus to make a change. I don't think any of those were anywhere near as close as 90/10. Some of the "don't change" conclusions were probably a significant majority against the change. But I don't think there was ever a case that I saw where I thought 80 (much less 90) percent of the room wanted something, but the chairs ruled that there was no consensus. My concern about re-opening the document is in fact that opinions were very divided. Getting agreement on any change is going to be a lot of work, if it succeeds at all. Try to get rough consensus on clear words on something as divisive as how much oversight the confirming bodies should perform seems a recipe for failure. Yours, Joel _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
