[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Mon May 14 15:37:37 PDT 2012
This seems to be heading in far away off topic directions, so I'll probably continue this off-list if you reply. And also feel free to reply off-list.
On 14 May 2012, at 21:56 , Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> It is inconceivable to you that there be a change in the status quo if some people dont want change?
Yes for a small value of some; no for a large value. If 1% don't want it, no big deal. If 40% don't want it, then we have a problem.
> So the idea of democracy where the majority get to make decisions must really warp your mind quite seriously.
In all seriousness: yes. Democracy is really a terrible system, where the majority gets to impose its will upon the minority. I'll refrain from citing unpleasant examples. Of course the situation where a minority imposes its will on the majority is even worse.
There's a reason why the IETF doesn't make decisions through democracy.
> I see no reason that the status quo have a privileged position. Clearly there has to be consensus that an alternative is better. But consensus need not mean unanimity.
Then we are in agreement. (Although my dictionary does list consensus as a synonym for unanimity, but rough consensus as practiced by the IETF certainly isn't.)
> There were many folk who thought it inconceivable gays could serve in the us military not so long ago.
I chose the word "inconceivable" for a reason. It's not the same thing as "impossible".
More information about the rfc-interest