[address-policy-wg] A failure to communicate

Hi!

Yes. Also RFC7282 says:

> One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus
>
> Section 3 discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary).
> Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared.

And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered!

So do we have real consensus?

01.07.2015, 12:25, "Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com>:
> On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:04, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter.
>>  Right?
>
> No, no and no. The WG made (or is making) the decision in the usual manner: by consensus. The WG's co-chairs are responsible for determining when the WG has reached consensus. The opinion of every member of the WG matters and is taken into account in that consensus determination. Provided of course the WG member expresses their opinion and does so in a reasonable way (ie no abusive/insulting language or ad-hominem attacks).
>
> Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Please read RFC7282. Here's a quote from that: "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". Although this RFC is for the IETF's decision making its principles apply to RIPE and other Internet organisations too.
>
> In the case of 2015-01, we're at the point where the WG needs to decide if all the issues in the proposal have been addressed even if some of them not have not been accommodated. IMO we have reached that point. YMMV.

-- 
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503