Ken Raeburn wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.
Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way
of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there
aren't any, after a period of free discussion.
If it's not a change, then there's no need for text suggesting how the
IESG should judge consensus in this matter, is there?
Apparently not.
I entered into what looked to me like a discussion-becoming-an-argument
with what seemed like a useful clarification of the "rules", but even
the desirability of doing so seems to have to fight to establish
"concensus". That, to me, is more than I want to put on my plate.
I think I'll go back to lurking, and let those who are paid for this
continue this discussion.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf