There is another problem to do with consensus and the status quo.
Say we have a situation where a clear majority of a working group believes that
a spec is unworkable unless a particular change is made. A small minority
opposes the change for ideological reasons.
Should the outcome in this case be:
1) Neither proposal can advance until there is consensus
2) The status quo proposal trumps the position with majority support
3) The majority position is adopted.
4) Both proposals advance
In the case that the proposal is an additional feature then 3 and 4 are
essentially the same.
The problem here is that the positions that are most likely to be held hostage
by DISCUSS are cases like this one where there is a clear majority in favor of
change but the minority see absolutely no reason to compromise because they
consider that they hold an effective veto, the majority can go hang.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:10 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: "Discuss" criteria
to follow up on Dave's note
* The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical
approach or document. There are cases where individual working
groups or areas have forged rough consensus around a technical
approach which does not garner IETF consensus. An AD may DISCUSS
a document where she or he believes this to be the case. While
the Area Director should describe the technical area where
consensus is flawed, the focus of the DISCUSS and its resolution
should be on how to forge a cross-IETF consensus.
what actual evidence must an AD present to indicate that the
assertion of non-consensus is anywhere but in the one AD's mind?
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf