A minor point inline, rest snipped
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Resnick"
To:
Cc: "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:48 PM
> Finally back to this original review.
>
> On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> >>Note that this portrays rough con
Finally back to this original review.
On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
In terms of philosophy and desirable practice, the draft
discusses an extremely appealing model and generally explains its
nature and practice well. However the draft tends to confuse what is
(or has been) with
On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>> dcroc...@bbiw.net
>>>
>>> From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't
>>> enough; it's worth making that explicit.
>>
>> To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about ma
pher (UK)
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; Pete Resnick; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> dcroc...@bbiw.net
>>
>> From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't
>> enough; it's worth making that explicit.
>
> To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about making clear,
> British and American English differ here. If
To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about making
clear, British and American English differ here. If three
proposals (not the most common case, I agree, but it can happen)
have 45%, 35% and 20% of the votes, the first of these has a
majority, sometimes emphasis
dcroc...@bbiw.net
> a "majority rule-> a "simple majority rule"
> Majorities come in different forms or degrees and the fact that 'rough
> consensus' is often taken to mean 67% or 75%, as a rule of thumb can
> make this confusing.
> From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 5
On 10/6/13 4:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 07/10/2013, at 11:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> 1. in a natural state; without decoration or other treatment. "a
>> diamond in the rough"
>> 2. in difficulties. "even before the recession hit, the project was
>> in the rough"
> I think he's using it
On 07/10/2013, at 11:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Now, a conclusion of having only rough consensus relies heavily on
>> the good judgement of the consensus caller. The group must truly
>> consider and weigh an issue before the objection can be dismissed as
>> being "in the rough". The
