On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:24:40PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 05 July, 2005 08:47 -0700 Bill Manning
I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC
2780 is in force.
Especially since there is a clear path for Larry Roberts to
ask for IETF consensus, which by definition would overrule
just for my edification, how is IETF consensus determined,
esp. when there is a need to "overrule the IESG"? in other
contexts, this type of thing is done by a vote of the
but last i checked, there are no members of the IETF.
As far as I can tell, there are only two ways:
Middle posting: I think John and Bill are missing the
primary mechanism which is *trusting* the relevant AD to
call the IETF consensus honestly, even if s/he doesn't
agree with it. That shouldn't be hard to accept, since
we extend the same trust to every WG Chair.
If the AD makes the wrong call, then complaints, appeals and even
recalls are available.
if John is correct, and your statements are correct,
then IETF consensus kind of depends on IESG tacit
approval... and why would the IESG approve something
that would "second-guess" or "overrule" a choice they
already made? Me thinks that we have a -VERY- high
threshold to challange an IESG fiat. And this may be
bad for the continued health/relevence of the IETF.
Or not... development can and does occur in other fora.
The IETF may not see the work until it is cooked.
(i) We ask the IESG if they think they have been
overruled. In the nasty and impolite old days, the
question was often stated at open plenaries, with at
least the possibility of [real or virtual] over-ripe
fruit moving through the air in the IESG's direction.
Today, when a larger percentage of the community seems
either inclined to suffer in silence or disinclined to
speak up, the message from the community probably needs
to be much more clear, and the consensus stronger, for
the IESG to reach that conclusion.
(ii) Someone appeals, essentially asking the IAB whether
the IESG has been overruled. The problem with this path
is that, in the last decade, the IAB has tended to be
deferential to the IESG's determinations about community
consensus. That determination is often hard to make,
the various procedural documents appear to assign the
job of making it to the IESG, and the IAB has tended to
want to look at procedural issues on appeals and to not
review the IESG's judgment calls.
Perhaps, in both cases, that is how we want it. If it is not,
perhaps this is the time to start making procedural changes.
But, in either case, the difficulties implied by the above are
the greatest part of what makes statements such as the last
clause in the IESG's rejection of the Roberts registration
request particularly troubling: if the IESG has already
concluded the community consensus is sufficiently unlikely that
they recommend against trying to obtain it, the amount of
consensus, and ways of demonstrating it, that would be needed to
get them to decide their conclusion was incorrect and they had
been overruled may set an impossibly high barrier.
Ietf mailing list