On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:44 AM Dennis Jackson <ietf= 40dennis-jackson...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On 14/01/2025 18:48, Filippo Valsorda wrote: > > Two participants sending a dozen emails in support of solution A, and six > participants sending one email each in support of solution B can look a lot > like there is no consensus, or that there is consensus for solution A, > especially if not all objections to solution B are painstakingly addressed. > > I've certainly seen this before. Generally if the chairs are doing a good job they will not just count mail messages. With that said, I'm also not sure that in a WG of a hundred people 6 in favor and 2 against is really rough consensus. > This is slightly adjacent to the point you were making, but I think > there's an implicit assumption here which is different from 'rough > consensus' as I understand it. RFC 2418 [1] lays out: > > In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. > (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the > basis of volume or persistence, > but rather a more general sense of agreement.) > [...] > Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and > 99% is better than rough. > > RFC 7282 [2], perhaps more an ideal rather than any actual description of > IETF practice, explores the last part further in the sections: "One > hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus" > and "Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough > consensus". > Note that 7282 is an Informational document and doesn't have any normative force. Absent some edge case like sock puppets, I find it hard to believe either of these scenarios. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
