I do appreciate the authors writing a draft, as opposed to participants who
make a usual vague process change suggestion on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org and generate
confused discussion that results from no two commenters having the same
understanding of the proposed process change...
HOWEVER.
I can't imagine that ever encouraging the IESG to decide that they know what
IETF consensus "really" is, while disregarding public comment, is ever going
to be a good thing to do. The community guidance to the IESG for the past N
(where N is at least 3) years has been that the IESG needs to request and
respect public comment on an increasing number of topics. I believe that any
IESG declaration of consensus based on something beside public comment would
be appealable ("all the way to the ISOC BoD") as a process violation, and
that it would be a reasonable basis for an AD recall filing.
I am also worried about the use of this precedent on other topics.
Sorry!
Spencer
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. In that regard,
Henrik Levkowetz posted the following comment
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg39170.html):
"Following the debate from the sideline till now, it's clear to me
that there are at least a few people who are adamantly against
change. I'm not at all convinced that a large majority feels this
way. A poll might reveal more than the relative proportions of
highly engaged people voicing their views here."
Judging consensus through a poll is sometimes difficult. There is a
vast "silent majority" that would support the proposed additional
formats, or at least not oppose them, but will not express their
opinion on the list. It is much more likely to hear from the very
vocal people who are opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s
of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed
'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in
favor of change.
No. Either you have to judge consensus from what's experessed on the
mailing list, or you have to use some other means of soliciting
*expressed*
views. You MAY NOT assume that unvoiced views are biased in any
direction,
and then declare consensus based on such an assumption.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf