> That OMB rule, in turn, defines "consensus" as follows: "general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments".

From https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html#standards, linked in TFA.

The standard used in the C and C++ committees is essentially a 2-to-1 majority in favor. I'm not aware of any committee where a 3-to-1 majority is insufficient to get an item to pass.

DJB's argument that this isn't good enough would, by itself, be enough for me to route his objections to /dev/null; it's so tedious and snipey that it sours the quality of his other arguments by mere association. And overall, it gives the impression of someone who is more interested in derailing the entire process than in actually trying to craft a good standard.

A consensus is 100%. A rough consensus should be near 100%. 2/3 is a super majority. That's a very different standard.

It's always a mistake to look at numbers for consensus, without also considering how strongly the positions are held.

consensus is not a synonym for majority, supermajority, or for any fraction of the whole, unless the fraction is 100%