I know the SIG chair followed our PDP.
I don't think you do. If you did then this thread would have stopped a long time ago.
As myself, Save and others have said previously, the policy development process could not be any clearer:
If there are substantial objections at ANY point in the policy development process, then consensus CANNOT be confirmed.
It does not matter whether consensus has been reached at the NIR SIG and AMM.
Why? I hear you ask, and the answer is simple. The vast majority of members are neither on the NIR SIG mailing list, nor are they able to attend the AMM.
This is why the comment period on the SIG policy mailing list is so important.
Please Google "define:consensus" to answer your other points.
Myself and others have said it before but I'll say it again. If you don't agree with the process, then propose a change.
All I am point out is that there were many options that the chair
- NIR SIG consensus + AMM consensus + public comment(4:4:1) is a consensus
- during public comment period 4:4:1 is a tie (I can not decide.
EC decide) 3. no consensus 4. We need more time to decide since we have split opinion among members 5. etc.
Why number 3 when the figure is 4:4:1? (I could not see any rational, logical/reasonable reasoning)
This is good place to discuss.
The rest, I know we all followed our PDP.