<snip>
We could certainly base declared consensus on other things. My point is
that doing so likely requires a fundamental rethink of IETF process -
simply encouraging the IESG to disregard the current IETF process BCPs
on a case-by-case basis does not point me in any direction I'm
comfortable with, and nicely justifies anyone who wants to appeal the
decision as a process violation - not likely to make change happen MORE
quickly...
[YJS] That is why we proposed that the draft be part of a process change
process.
We purposely wanted to avoid the question that William Leibzon asked
here
on the general list, namely how many of the people who follow the
general list
are against using alternative formats. We have seen based on past
discussions
that there is a strong corrleation between following the general list
and
not admitting to be able to read any format other than ASCII.
We need some rethinking as to how to judge what the IETF community as a
whole
wants to do about some general issues. The only thing I am sure about is
that
consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly as it is.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf