[anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

Hi Nick, all,

In many situations "rough consensus" was reached after many versions. Sometimes is a matter of finding the right balance, "the point in the middle" I was referring before. Even if it takes 10 versions instead of just 2.

The issue is for the chairs, not an easy task, in the way to determine if objections are valid. Objections aren't just a matter of "taste", which is not valid, as very well described in RFC7282.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/5/20 23:36, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de nick at foobar.org> escribió:

    Hi Carlos,

    Carlos Friaças wrote on 09/05/2020 22:25:
    > On Sat, 9 May 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote:
    >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 09/05/2020 15:23:
    >>> Having one might at least lay this discussion to rest once and for 
    >>> all. I?ve seen variants of it for several years now.
    >>
    >> But imagine if someone contacted a bunch of their colleagues and said: 
    >> "look, there's this policy proposal going on in RIPE AAWG and it would 
    >> be really great if you could just join up on the mailing list and add 
    >> in a +1, thanks!"
    >>
    >> Therein lies the problem - or at least one of the problems - with 
    >> voting: it's wide open to manipulation.
    > 
    > Same goes for "it takes only 2 or 3 voices to break consensus".
    > 
    > Even if arguments are somewhat "creative"...

    no, and in fact this is the point of consensus.  It depends on informed 
    judgement and assessment, not a handful of dissenting voices, or people 
    shouting, or votes or anything else.  It's worth reading RFC 7282. 
    There is a lot of wisdom in that document.

    >> In the sense that you're concerned that there's stalemate regarding 
    >> some of these proposals, there isn't according to the PDP: no 
    >> consensus is a legitimate and clear outcome, and when there is no 
    >> consensus, the policy does not proceed.
    > 
    > The *proposal* does not proceed... the policy can already be in place, 
    > but remains unchanged.

    The existing reached consensus despite a number of dissenting voices :-)

    Personally, I think the policy does more harm than good, but it is what 
    it is.  I'm not going to put in a proposal to remove it because that 
    probably wouldn't reach consensus and it would end up wasting working 
    group time.

    Nick




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.