[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi Jordi,

> I agree that is not “unanimity”, but I don’t think there is consensus on this proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review period “because” a proposal has been brought in the last minute to another fora, when the chairs already declared “that we don’t have consensus”.
> 
> See this message:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2017-November/012271.html
> 
> Is something that we should do for every policy proposal that don’t reach consensus?

Definitely not. As you can see from the history of APWG we have had plenty proposals that never reach consensus, and this is fine.

> Is this meaning that we will always “extend” the PDP timeline *until* we reach consensus?

Nope. The extension was because you suggested a new approach (going further than what the current proposal was addressing) and we wanted to see if there was support in the community for your approach. It turned out that solving the current need with a good-enough solution was seen as more important than getting a perfect solution some time in the future.

Short summary:
- a problem was discovered in the IPv6 policy
- we see consensus that this policy proposal solves that problem
- we recognise that you would like an even better solution
- and we'll happily work with you to achieve that!
- but because this proposal solves the original problem we don't want to delay it

> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into the mailing list and support the proposal vs non-supporters.
> 
> Not sure if you see my point?

I see what you are saying, and I disagree with it. Please see the mailing list archives to check the history of this working group.

Cheers,
Sander