Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn 
> <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
> > section 3 says:
> >
> > |   Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
> > |   declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number
> > |   of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list.
> >
> > I object to this text, as it might (mis)lead the reader into thinking
> > that the methods for declaring consensus were being modified, 
> > particularly
> > if this document somehow became a BCP.  To deal with this issue, I 
> > suggest
> > the removal of the following material from section 3:
>
>
> Agree.  If the authors actually wish to propose a change to the way 
> consensus is determined in the IETF, then they should do so in a 
> separate document.  Naturally, like any process change in any 
> organization, such a change would have to be made under the _existing_ 
> process before it could take effect.

Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough consensus is to
leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs (if relevant)
and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is significant.
That's not going to change any time soon, and certainly not as a side effect.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf