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(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf