This is not WG mail list (right now), therefore reference to 2418 and 3934
as primary ones in regards to management and actions are not appropriate
at this time.
I work under the theory that the best way to become an IETF working group is to
act like one, in terms of process and productivity.
In any event, as I said in the posting, rough consensus decides the issue of
its
applicability.
Also to enable new rules/regulations rough consensus needs to exist to
do it, not the other way around as you put it.
As I've noted before, there are two approaches to doing group rough consensus.
One asks for the rough consensus on the affirmative and one asks for the
negative. Each has their benefits and their drawbacks. Each is used regularly
in the IETF. Both have safety valves.
Asserting that rough consensus exists, without actually asking people to say
they *agree" requires that the person making the assertion typically be
correct.
In other words, it means that I need to feel pretty certain of the group
preference. In this case, I do. But note that my being wrong is easily dealt
with: just develop rough consensus to reverse the decision. If the group
really
does not want to operate under these rules, it will be trivial to get that
decision reversed.
The benefit of using this "default yes" mode is efficiency. Things can move
more quickly and the group can stay focused.
However, to be painfully and maybe redundantly clear, it only works if the
group
supports that mode.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net