RE: [ga] Consensus

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Jon,

> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:18 AM

> It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just 
> can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that 
> the members will not recognize any informal decision as
> legitimate, so that nothing can be decided without the
> full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If so, 
> I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the 
> dysfunctionality of this body, and yet another obstacle to
> accomplishing any actual work.

Yes, it is ALL a trust issue. We have all decried the UDRP. The UDRP was
instituted via DNSO/WG-A. Joaquim used the IETF "consensus call" method. The
problem is that it is perceived that he used the "consensus call" to pound
through a result that didn't really have consensus. Regardless of either of
our reletive opinions in that matter you must surely recognise that, lacking
a recorded vote or poll, the entire output of WG-A is forever tainted. There
is no clearly supported work-product.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html