I am beginning to wonder about the IETF consensus processes and so
figured I will ask for advice on this list. First, a summary of some of
my observations over the past few months (I have real examples of these,
but we don't quite need to get into those):
1. Some people (WG chairs) seem to (want to) ask for consensus on
everything and that too many times:
1a. Ask for consensus on whether to adopt a document as a WG
item,
whether something is/should
be in the charter
who should be an editor
should the WG meet
1c. Ask again and again
2. Some people do it in multiple settings and in many different
combinations
2a. Ask on the mailing list
2b. Ask at a f2f meeting (sometimes, after having asked a
question on the mailing list)
2c. And sometimes ask again on the mailing list (sometimes,
after 2a even)
3. Some people ask questions at a face to face meeting and declare
consensus one way or another
From 2418 and 4677, my understanding has been that
i) there are certain things such as appointing editors which are up
to the chairs' discretion and appointing chairs which is up to the ADs'
discretion (they may seek open or selective input, but are not
necessarily required to do so).
ii) asking for consensus once is sufficient and the process may be
repeated only if things were unclear.
iii) asking a question on the mailing list is sufficient to declare
consensus; if opinions were sought at a face to face meeting, the
chair/AD must ask on the mailing list before declaring consensus.
Yet I see ADs declaring consensus after getting the sense of the room at
a face to face meeting and so I am curious whether our process documents
are out of date or whether I am reading them out of context.
Thoughts?
regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf