> Based on the vote count, I strongly disagree with this! We have STRONG
> consensus, with a minority opinion.
>
> >I would go along with saying we have "rough consensus, with
> >strong minority dissention".
For the benefit of those not at the Maui meeting (nor dialed into
the telecon), after a couple of XML presentations and discussions
a vote was taken. In fact, TWO votes were taken: one based on
"personal" (ie, one vote per person), and one for "company" (one
vote per represented company). The results were:
Personal:
Send current draft to IESG: 20 (77%)
Delay sending the current draft: 6 (13%)
Company:
Send current draft to IESG: 11 (78%)
Delay sending the current draft: 3 (12%)
As a result, Carl-Uno Manros declared that the IPP WG had "rough
consensus" in favor of sending the current draft as-is to the IESG.
Afterwards, Josh Cohen (Microsoft) raised significant objections
to the use of the term "rough consensus"; he later echoed those
comments on this DL:
> I do not agree that we have "consensus".
> To me, consensus means at least a majority in favor,
> and no "vehement" objections.
> I would go along with saying we have "rough consensus, with
> strong minority dissention".
Josh does seem to raise a good point that needs to be well understood
by the PWG in the future, namely, exactly what does "rough consensus"
mean? Is it purely subjective (based on the WG chairperson's
perogative)? Or can it be objective (based on numerical analysis)?
Perhaps our AD's can provide some brief insight on this topic,
just so we don't get into this kind of problem in the future.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------