[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi Gert,

Below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 14:51
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

    Hi,
    
    On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:09:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
    > I agree that is not ???unanimity???, but I don???t think there is consensus on this proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review period ???because??? a proposal has been brought in the last minute to another fora, when the chairs already declared ???that we don???t have consensus???.
    
    At the end of the original review period, we had three options
    
      - withdraw, because no clear support either way from the community
      - change text, and come up with a new review period
      - explain that we need more input, and extend the review period
    
    especially with the "we did not clear enough guidance", we regularily do
    this (extending discussion or review periods).  Always with a clear 
    explanation why this has been done.

[Jordi]    This is what we have at the PDP, and thus the only way we can do option 3 that you mention above:
“The WG chair can also decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.”

It may be a matter of wording calling it “extending” or “new” review phase, but wording matters, and in any case, the document was not edited as the PDP text indicates, neither we had a new version. It seems to me “mandatory” according to the PDP, as it not says “optionally”, to edit it and have a new review phase with a “new version of the proposal”.


    > Is this meaning that we will always ???extend??? the PDP timeline *until* we reach consensus?
    
    If extending the timeline leads to fruitful discussions that eventually
    leads to consensus, this is a desirable outcome.

[Jordi] And totally agree here, but having the PDP followed, which means new version, etc.
    
    > Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
    > 
    > Not sure if you see my point?
    
    Well, yes.  If an active proposer manages to get enough friends in here,
    and also finds ways to shut down opposing voices by blackmail, bribery,
    enough beer, or other ways, then you can get every proposal through.
    
    I do not think this accurately reflects the process for 2016-04, though.

[Jordi] Again, wording matters in a PDP process:

“Max has brought up the topic at DENOG9 last week, to elicit more people into
adding input into this discussion - which would be helpful in evaluating
(rough) consensus.

Thus, we've decided that we will extent the review period by four weeks.”

My understanding of “adding input” is precisely, being able to contribute to a new version as the PDP indicates, however it was just “yes I support it”, etc.

I think our job is to resolve objections whenever we can, so we have a broader consensus. Is not that the goal of “consensus”?

    
    Gert Doering
            -- NetMaster
    -- 
    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
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.