Sam Hartman wrote:
"Andy" == Andy Bierman <ietf(_at_)andybierman(_dot_)com> writes:
Andy> This is not an alternative. If you are not willing to make
Andy> your technical objections to a technical specification
Andy> publicly, then they cannot be part of the IETF
Andy> decision-making process.
At one level I agree here.
Andy> What's to prevent a WG Chair from "padding" the anonymous
Andy> "votes"? If 5 people in public (WG meeting or mailing list)
Andy> are for some proposal, and the Chair says, "I heard from 6
Andy> people who are against this, but don't want their identities
Andy> known, so the proposal is rejected." Not acceptable.
I think that would be unacceptable. I think that a WG chair going to
people who expressed private concerns and saying something like "Hey,
you need to express your concerns in public. They are shared; if all
of the people who have these concerns bring them forward then we would
have enough interest in dealing with this issue. You have a week," is
I also think it is fine for a WG chair to look at private technical
concerns, realize they are correct and raise them to the WG. "I
received a private concern; that mail pointed out that the following
trivial attack will break the security of this protocol. We are not
moving forward until someone fixes this problem or someone explains
why I'm misunderstanding the situation."
I don't understand why such a comment needs to be private.
Once the issue comes to light in the WG, it is no longer going
to be private.
You are assuming the Chair can and should be a proxy for a
WG member who wishes to remain anonymous. I disagree.
It's probably even fine to say "I received a lot of private concerns.
Are the people willing to make public comments firmly behind their
I am specifically referring to technical comments.
I realize that WG members may have non-technical concerns
which are appropriate to convey to the Chair privately.
I think the IETF consensus process is severely flawed.
Many times I have encountered deadlocks because 3 people
are strongly for something, 3 people are strongly against it,
and 40 people couldn't care less which way the decision goes.
Determining consensus based on hearsay and humming makes matters
Ietf mailing list