Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

> Brian,
>
> Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has
> very specific relevance in this case.
>
> Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few
> nay-sayers.
>
> However, the text objected to in this case argues that
> this process should be extended by a process of counting the
> people who don't publicly participate in the discussion, either
> way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of
> the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.

... and this was what concerned me, too.

It's been a couple of years, but we had some discussions are part of the 
IETF Problem Statement about people who aren't comfortable commenting in 
public on technical issues for a variety of reasons (including, but not 
limited to, cultural reasons). The context at that time was people who DO 
comment - just not on public mailing lists.

The guidance we ended up with was that we don't know how to make 
"commenting, just not publically" part of the consensus determination.

In this context, the question is about the IETF toolset, not about protocol 
specifics, but since we insist on using the protocol 
specification/standardization BCPs for process discussions, I'm really 
concerned about asking the IESG to violate those BCPs in determining 
consensus on a process question. It's a slippery slope to "We know what 
consensus is on this protocol question, even if the people who agree don't 
post"...

Spencer

Spencer

Spencer 


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