[ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
> At 01:09 03/11/2013 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>
>> This and the lack of quid-pro-quo are the two main reasons why this
>> proposal is critically flawed and why it should not become RIPE community
>> policy in its current form.
>>
>> Nick
>
>
> About 15 people stated their support for 2012-07 in this forum so for me as
> one of the authors I see this as consensus.  Consensus does not mean
> everyone has to agree - just that most people need to agree.  As I see it,
> most people agree.

I think your view on Consensus are a bit of with what alot of us other
think, please go read
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/

Or a shorter answer, it's not about the number, it is about getting
people to agree it is a doable solution even when they don't agree on
all. Their biggest objections need to be addressed, and discussed.




-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no