[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi Jim,

I think the flaw is in the PDP or the way we are using it. Maybe we have done a “lazy” interpretation at some point, and then we get used to it (so, it is not a chairs issue, is a community one).

Please, forget for a minute about this policy proposal and seriously consider two questions:

1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to the list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you “agree” only with the “policy text” or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or with the NCC interpretation (impact analysis), or all of them?
2) What if the text in those 3 pieces are presenting contradictions or can be easily be interpreted in different ways?



Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 11:02
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

    
    
    > On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
    > 
    > 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?
    
    That's very true. I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. :-)
    
    Your reading/understanding of the PDP is flawed Jordi. RIPE642 explicitly says a proposal may not reach consensus. Or even get to a point where a consensus decision needs to be taken. So it's simply wrong to say every proposal can always reach consensus. Common sense should tell you that too. You should also be aware that we've had policy proposals which have died one way or another. They didn't reach consensus. QED.
    
    And yes, in theory it's possible for a charlatan to "stack the deck" by having their (ficticious) friends express support for a proposal. [That's an unwelcome side effect of having an open community with no membership/eligibility criteria.] This is where the sound judgement of the WG's chair comes in. They should be able to detect these kinds of manipulations and take appropriate action. There are further checks and balances too. The appeals procedure mean a dodgy consensus determination can be scrutinised by the WGCC and the RIPE chairman.
    
    
    



**********************************************
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.