[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Excellent
Thanks
Joao

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:59, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote:
>> Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short.
>> One might want to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of
>> how to cooperate with recognised differences.
> 
> APWG works on "rough consensus" and "all objections have been *addressed*"
> - which does not require "the person raising the objection is convinced
> and withdraws his or her objection".  We try to convince :-) - but since
> this does not always work, it's called "rough" consensus.
> 
> Besides this, there is different types of objections
> 
> - "I fully object to changing anything in this general direction, ever!"
> - "I think this is good, but I disagree with the wording, because..."
> - "I think this is good, and I see the need for a change, but the
>    proposed policy change is not the right way to do it / is too limited,
>    we should aim for a larger and more encompassing change"
> 
> 
> Type 1 objections can not be "postponed" - if you go somewhere against
> strong objection to the general direction, you need convincing, counter
> arguments, and occasionally you end up at "withdraw due to no consensus"
> (and sometimes the consensus is rougher than usual).
> 
> Type 2 objections are usually dealt with by going through a few review
> cycles with new text, incorporating such input into new versions of the
> document.  This is what we've had here: there was feedback to earlier
> policy text, and Max did quite a few rounds based on that feedback,
> together with RS, to come up with text that is clear to RS and to the WG.
> 
> Type 3 objections can be handled by taking notice of them, and starting a
> new policy proposal with the larger change after this one is done.
> 
> 
> Jordi's is - as I explained in my summary mail without detailling these
> categories - "type 3".  The WG has discussed his alternative idea, and
> there was not enough backing to change 2016-04 into something more general
> - instead there was support to finish 2016-04 *now*, instead of leaving
> those impacted by the current policy shortcomings waiting further, until
> we have consensus on how a larger policy change would look like.
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 873 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180115/c2474a32/attachment.sig>