Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 11:46:13PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
[...]
> This is unacceptable and unwarranted and does not represent a consensus
> of the working group.  I most strenuously object.  
> I further submit that any procedure which claims this report is the
> result of a consensus of the working group in which I participated in
> seriously flawed.

Throughout all proceedings of the DNSO we should understand the word
"consensus" to mean "rough consensus" as exemplified by the IETF. 
The dictionary definition sometimes gives the impression that
"consensus" means "unanimity", and that is not what is intended.  It
sometimes happens that an IETF WG generates a product despite
continuous, strenuous, and vociferous objections from individuals who
are members of the group. 

It should be apparent that a rule that requires unanimity for
progress would make things very difficult -- the classic instance of
the "tyranny of the minority"...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain