[address-policy-wg] defining consensus

On 9 Dec 2011, at 00:36, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote:

> As much as I like to see this policy change implemented and as much as
> I disagree with Geza, technically if someone is opposing (and I  
> think all
> would agree that it was not trolling), then that is technically not an
> consensus.

No. You're describing unanimity: where everyone agrees or at least  
nobody objects. Consensus is when there's a lack of sustained,  
reasonable objection. That's the usual working definition used in most  
consensus-driven organisations, which includes RIPE. We can have  
consensus in RIPE without having unanimity. A single voice of  
complaint cannot be allowed to mean we can't declare consensus. Nobody  
at RIPE can have a veto on policy making. If they did, that would be  
utterly unworkable.

IMO, the concerns Geza raised -- and has since withdrawn? -- fail to  
pass the test of sustained, reasonable objection. Nobody else seemed  
to support his position.

Incidentally, consensus in a WG is whatever its chairs decide is  
consensus. That's why they're there. :-) And why there are further  
steps in the PDP to check that decision. If  a small number object to  
a proposal that otherwise has overwhelming support, the WG chairs can  
quite reasonably declare consensus on that proposal.