[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

On 16/01/2018 10:02, Jim Reid wrote:
> And yes, in theory it's possible for a charlatan to "stack the deck" by having their (ficticious) friends express support for a proposal.

Actually, if "rough consensus" is applied properly (and you could
criticise what I'm about to say by saying is overly theoretical), I
don't think stacking the audience with supporters does achieve rough
consensus. Rough consensus should never be about counting noses.

That's because I don't think that "rough consensus" is primarily about
how many supporters a proposal has, I think it's about primarily about
the nature and quality of the objection.

If there are no objections, that's unanimous approval, which is a subset
of rough consensus.

If there are objections, the number of objections isn't a first order
concern (although that can be a signal of something else).

If the objections are recognised as being serious, valid concerns that
haven't been properly addressed, then the Chairs should find that "rough
consensus" has not yet been achieved. And it shouldn't really matter how
few people object, except insofar as a signal (if nobody has been
persuaded, why is that? Perhaps this signals an underlying flaw in the
objection, that allows it to be legitimately discarded).

If the only objections are invalid (e.g. out of scope) or have been
properly addressed, then it is possible to find a rough consensus
notwithstanding that some (or even many) people still have (invalid)
objections or aren't willing to accept that their point has been dealt with.

In the present case, Sander wrote:
> Short summary:
> - a problem was discovered in the IPv6 policy
> - we see consensus that this policy proposal solves that problem
> - we recognise that you would like an even better solution
> - and we'll happily work with you to achieve that!
> - but because this proposal solves the original problem we don't want to delay it

To me, that reads as an admirably clear and succinct explanation in the
category "we've dealt with your objection, now we're moving on".

Of course, what constitutes an "invalid" objection is hard to describe
and extremely difficult to define completely, perhaps not even possible.

But I'm sure we can all think of examples. Here's one:
   "I don't think this policy should be approved because RIPE has no
   legitimate authority to make policy; that is the purview of
   governments" would, IMO, be an invalid objection, on the grounds that
   the central question it poses (does RIPE has legitimate policy-making
   authority?) is out of scope for a discussion about whether X should
   be approved (possibly on other, more complicated grounds too).

   If someone packed the floor / mailing list, with hundreds of people
   who agreed with that proposition, I think the proper course of action
   for a APWG Chair would be to ignore all of them.
   There's a time and a place for that kind of discussion. During a PDP
   is not it.

This does invest an awful lot of responsibility in the WG Chairs (or,
for matters considered by the community as a whole, the RIPE Chair), to
discern and discriminate between a valid of objection and an invalid
one. It is requires a lot of rather subjective judgement, not on the
matter at hand, but on the nature of the discussion and our community
and its purpose and values and what we consider a legitimate frame of
discussion. While I happen to think that having a conversation that
attempts to broaden a common understanding of the kinds of things that
Chairs ought to consider invalid objections would be beneficial, not
least for the WG Chairs and especially future Chairs, this can only be a
discussion of principles and norms, it can never be turned into a rigid
set of rules. This model will always rest heavily on the judgment of the
Chairs. I'm OK with that.

Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA