[rpd] Report on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07" (IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).

[Mark Elkins]

Though I'd share: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus

*Rough consensus* is a term used in consensus decision-making
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making> to indicate
the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter under
consideration. It has been defined as the "dominant view" of a group as
determined by its chairperson
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairperson>. The term was first used by
the Internet Engineering Task Force
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force> (IETF)
in describing its procedures for working groups
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_group> (WGs).

The means to establish rough consensus was described by the IETF as follows:

    Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
    IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
    this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the
    working group shall prevail. (However, "dominance" is not to be
    determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more
    general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show
    of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by
    rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does
    not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is
    up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached
    (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures).

The phrase is often extended into the saying "rough consensus and
running code", to make it clear that the IETF is interested in
practical, working systems that can be quickly implemented. There is
some debate as to whether running code leads to rough consensus or vice
versa.

There is also caution about whether percentages are a good measure for
rough consensus. The IETF published a subsequent document pointing out
that supporting percentage is less important for determining "rough
consensus" than ensuring opposing views are addressed.

-----------------------------------

Now, I don't believe that opposing views have all been addressed, thus I
don't see how rough consensus could be called.Please consider this my
engagement with the PDP co-chairs regarding how consensus has been
achieved. There have been a goodly number of totally new people
objecting to the Last Call as well - which seems to have been ignored,
just because one person posted them to the list. Theyall look like
unique individuals to me!



On 27/12/2017 08:04, Jacob Odame wrote:
> Ademola
>
> See here
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Ademola Osindero
> <ademola at ng.lopworks.com <mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Sami Salih and Dewole Ajao,
>
>     What exactly is "rough consensus”?
>
>     -- 
>     Regards,
>     Ademola Osindero
>
>     CEO/Consulting Director
>     Lopworks Limited
>     3 Olaletan Street,
>     Off Onigefon Road, 
>     Oniru Estate, VI Extension,
>     Lagos, Nigeria
>
>     Mob: +234 8058097820, +234 <tel://+234> 8091291780
>     Tel: +234 1 3422633
>     Email: ademola at ng.lopworks.com <mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com>
>     Web: http://www.lopworks.com <http://www.lopworks.com/>
>
>     On 26 December 2017 at 23:29:03, Sander Steffann
>     (sander at steffann.nl <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>) wrote:
>
>>     Hello chairs,
>>
>>     > Please find the attached report on the Policy Proposal Report
>>     on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07"(IPv4 Soft
>>     Landing BIS).
>>
>>     Thank you for the report. I haven't spoken up earlier because
>>     everything that needed to be said was already posted by others in
>>     this working group, and I didn't want to add any noise. However,
>>     based on what I have seen on this mailing list I strongly feel
>>     that the conclusion you reached in your report is incorrect.
>>     There was nothing remotely resembling rough consensus, and I ask
>>     you to revise your conclusions.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Sander
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     RPD mailing list
>>     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>     <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     RPD mailing list
>     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>     <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171227/c620588f/attachment-0001.html>