[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and
    Ian> Consensus"):
    >> Having such serious objections that have not been adequately
    >> considered means you don't have rough consensus at least in the
    >> ways I judge rough consensus.

    Ian> Thanks for your thoughtful response and care when reading.

    Ian> However, I'm afraid I think this is rather muddled thinking.
    Ian> Consensus is a question about what proprtion of people hold
    Ian> certain opinion.  It doesn't involve a value judgement.
    Ian> Whereas, `adequately considered' involves a value judgement.

Ah, yes, we do not agree on what consensus is.
I think I understand your position well at this point and I thank you
for sharinge.
While I think your view on what consensus is differs from the consensus
view of consensus, I can certainly see where you are coming from.

If there are areas where you think additional discussion would be
valuable, I'd be happy to engage.  For this point though, I think I
understand our disagreement, and while I respect  where you are coming
from I'll need to do what I think is best.


Reply to: