<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>Hi Daniel,</div><div><br>I thought the keywords has always been ROUGH CONSENSUS and it means there are likely going to be dissents, as long as the dissenting voices are not in the majority.<br></div><div>That is not a good definition of rough consensus. Please study RFC 7282. </div><blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">So in a population of 100, 25 is a minority. Which we can conclude that a rough consensus have been reached. No matter how painful.</p>
</blockquote><div>Nope. This example from the RFC very much applies here: "<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Even if the working group chair makes a working group </span><font face="UICTFontTextStyleBody"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">"last call" on the document, and 100 people actively reply and say,
"This document is ready to go forward", if the open issue hasn't been
addressed, there's still no consensus, not even rough consensus.
It's the existence of the unaddressed open issue, not the number of </span></font><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">people, which is determinative in judging consensus.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>And this is where the mistake was made, and why I feel that the decision for consensus has to be appealed.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Sander</div><div><br></div></body></html>