In a consensus-oriented decision-making
framework everybody with an opinion would work together to
find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable)
accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another
standards body or modifying the charter and having the
work done in the IETF. That hasn't been the ways things
have worked during my short time with the IETF - noise is
made and the IESG goes off to think about it, work directly
with interested parties, and then make a decision. Maybe
it's not that meaningful for us to be talking about consensus
or direct voting when what we've really got is a republic.
For better or worse, we've never claimed to use consensus-based
decision-making for deciding whether a working group gets created.
We do require that there be a significant show of interest for
doing that group's work, but other than that, our process leaves
those decisions to IESG and IAB.
One of the presumptions behind the choice of consensus-based
decision-making even for working groups is that the people
making the decision are technically competent. Sometimes, the
people proposing a new working group are unable to demonstrate
technical competence, which makes their proposals quite dubious
indeed. In such a case, the right thing to do is to send them
elsewhere, but you'll never reach consensus with them about that.
Keith