I think we need an explicit prohibition on a member of the IESG being a Working
Group chair. This does not happen often but it has done in the past and it has
caused a real problem. Simply prohibiting an AD being chair of a WG in their
own area is not enough.
The problem with consensus is how you decide to count the undecideds/neutrals.
In most cases of controversy there will be a small group pro, a small group con
and the bulk of the WG will be somewhere inbetween. If the breakdown is
25%/25%/50% a biased chair can effectively decide the outcome by choosing to
interpret 'no objection' as 'no support' or vice versa.
Consensus is always the preferred basis for decision and usually the best
basis. There are situations where putting 'consensus' above pragmatics leads to
a proposal that is never going to be deployed.
If we are proposing to change the internet infrastructure and do not have the
support of the ISPs or the core DNS providers or whatever key constituency may
be required to put a proposal into effect then we need to have a mechanism for
dealing with that situation.
Another limitation to consensus is where there is a conflict between two
groups. There may be 100% consensus in group A that approach 1 is best, but
serious objections from group B. Or as frequently happens there may be a
dispute in group A as to the likelihood of objection a proposal will receive
from group B.
The appeals process is not optimal here because it only begins after the
process failure has occurred. The recall process is unworkable and unless
someone screws up really bad really early is not going to meaningfully shorten
a tenure that would otherwise expire anyway.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Lakshminath Dondeti
Cc: John C Klensin; IETF Discussion; Jeffrey Hutzelman
Subject: Re: On the IETF Consensus process
On 2007-05-26 00:46, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
Coming to the fear of retaliation issue (I guess we are
talking about
unethical behavior on part of an IESG or IAB member at this
point), we
need to find a way to fix that. On this, we seem to be
worse off than
the outside world. Let's take the US as an example (or we can take
India too; I am sorry, but those are the only two countries I am
somewhat familiar with): there are always checks and balances.
That's exactly why we have the appeals process, the recall
mechanism, and an independent Nomcom. And speaking for myself
(and probably
others) that's why more transparency is always good, as long
as it doesn't prevent the IAB and IESG being able to discuss frankly.
If you can suggest additional checks and balances, please do!
Brian
_______________________________________________
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