[ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy

On Mar 21, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

>> 5. And what *exactly* do we mean by consensus?
> 
> the ietf is making an effort in this space, see
> 
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-02


Yes!

I like that document, but my personal observation is that rough consensus works best if there is a clear technical goal and a shared set of values. i.e. it is easier for topics for which there is agreement from the people in the room that that technical goal needs a solution against a specific set of requirements. In the IETF they/we try to manage that with having good charters and requirements documents and even there it is sometimes very difficult.

The more you move to layer 9 the more difficult it gets to work towards consensus, mostly because the values start diverging. If one is at a point that the core values are diverged the consensus seeking turns into negotiation, and that is a whole different beast altogether (Dubai Dec 2013 comes to mind)

I think that the RIPE community is still enough of a community to have shared core values to enable consensus seeking. That circles back to Nigel's questions, specifically his 'authority but no responsibility' remark. If it is the case that our policy development does not take into account responsibility towards the institutions that we need to maintain, then I think some of us don't share the same values.


>  I welcome genuine debate


This thread will hit some fundamentals. To keep the entropy under control I promise myself to follow the 'not more than one mail per day rule' ;-)


--Olaf




NLnet
Labs
Olaf M. Kolkman

www.NLnetLabs.nl
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl

Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20130321/d864951a/attachment.html>