Re: [wg-review] (Consensus) "Rough" Consensus ambiguity

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:58:55PM -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
[...]
> DC: We reject kings, presidents, and voting.  We believe in rough
> consensus and a running code," where rough consensus was deliberately
> ambiguous concerning whether the consensus and its final product were
> ...  (inaudible) or the process was ...  (inaudible). 

The inaudible word is "rough".

> The answer was both are true. 

Yes.  The process and its final product are rough (in the sense of 
unpolished and imperfect), and the process is rough (in the sense of 
being strenuous and requiring effort).

[...]


> ************************************************
> I want to point out the line: "We believe in rough consensus and a
> running code," where rough consensus was deliberately ambiguous..." My
> question: If "rough consensus" was deliberately ambiguous in '97, what
> makes it any more coherent in 2001?

You are obviously not thinking clearly.  Deliberate and catchy ambiguity
in a cute and popular slogan does not at all imply that process being
described is incoherent.  In fact, the effectiveness of the IETF's
processes is without question -- that's how we got this Internet that
you play with. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html