From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 00:00:36 CDT
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Consensus ("rough" or otherwise) is not obtained when there are substantive
> objections, which in this case there are...
There are certainly vocal and persistent objections. Whether they are
substantive is less clear.
Moreover, even if we stipulate for purposes of discussion that they are
substantive, rough consensus does *not* require that all substantive
objections go away, only that they be addressed. They must be examined
and given fair consideration -- which these have been -- but there is no
requirement that they be eliminated. Standards are compromises and do
involve tradeoffs. A problem with a standard can be real and substantive
and nevertheless be deemed acceptable to avoid greater problems. It's not
possible to always make everyone happy; rough consensus only requires
making most people not too unhappy.
> Moreover, it is not the editor's role to declare consensus, particularly
> when the editor is an interested party in the outcome. Until one or more
> of the WG Chairs makes a ruling, your opinion is merely that, and carries
> no weight.
We unfortunately have no active WG Chair at the moment, but someone has to
make such decisions if the discussion is not to stall indefinitely on
disputed points. This particular discussion has already gone on much too
long. Unless and until one of the WG Chairs weighs in otherwise, I will
abide by Charles's decision to close the topic for now, and I urge
everyone else to do likewise.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net