![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hi, Philip,
Our mileages probably vary ("welcome to the IETF, variable mileage is how we know we're here!"), but ...
In the working group chair training, we point out that the most important thing working group chairs do, and the only responsibility they can't delegate, is declaration of working group consensus.
Call me a dreamer, but if there's one voice (which may or may not be from another planet) in a working group, the chair's responsibility is to decide if this is one of the hopefully rare cases where one voice SHOULD derail apparent consensus, and if it's not - to say so!
I understand the apparent advantage of saying, "well, if X says it's a good idea, X is from a large ISP, so they are probably right", but this doesn't prevent the second-order problem that large companies (ISPs or not) have a range of employee IQs, and if you defer to one of the low-order IQs because they work for Y, you may STILL end up in a bad place. I've seen this bad place personally.
I would hope that we evaluate ideas based on the message in most cases, and not on the messenger. If that's not what we do in most cases, I THINK this is a pretty fundamental change in how the IETF works.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.