Just following up here...
From: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
But, I wonder why anonymity is an important requirement. The mailing list
verification has at least two properties that are more important to the
IETF: the archives provide for anyone to be able to verify the consensus
independent of the IETF hierarchy (chairs, ADs and whoever); further the
archives provide a means to verify the consistency of any IETF
participant, chairs or ADs at any given moment, candidates for WG chair
and I* positions, and anyone in general.
We've been telling new WG chairs for several years that
- they really need to have most discussions in public/on mailing lists,
- we recognise that some people aren't comfortable challenging others in
public, and
- we recognise that this discomfort may be more common in some cultures than
in others.
So, for reasons that both John and Lakshminath identified, we've been asking
WG chairs to encourage participants to engage in public discussions, but to
be receptive to private requests for assistance on how to carry out those
discussions.
The alternative - a WG chair who tells the working group that the apparent
WG consensus on the mailing list is being overruled because of anonymous
objections that the WG chair cannot share with the WG, or because of private
objections that the WG chair is "channeling" from a back room - would make
voting seem reasonable (or, to use Mark Allman's characterization in another
thread, "seem charming").
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf