--On Friday, 27 June, 2008 11:23 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
At one level I agree. But suppose that the set of people who
are active in the SXFG7M WG are so focused on the sxfg7m
protocol that they have all missed the fact that it's
extremely damaging to normal operations of the m7gfxs
protocol? And this includes the responsible AD, who has no
deep knowledge of m7gfxs? This is the sort of problem that
IETF Last Call and IESG review is intended to find, and it may
well mean that the WG consensus ends up being irrelevant to
the IETF non-consensus. (I'm not in the least suggesting that
this applies to the draft that led to the appeal that led to
this thread.)
My conclusion, again, is that in the end this is the sort of
judgment call that we *expect* the IESG to make. And when we
feel they've misjudged, we appeal, and that tunes their
judgment for the future.
Brian,
Again, I agree. And this sort of example is precisely one of
the major reasons why proposals to let a WG override an IESG
conclusion about consensus are problematic (the other involves a
WG that has been "captured" by a particular interest in order to
get a particular protocol output, but I'd expect an AD to notice
that and deal with it long before documents go into Last Call).
However, it means that we need to treat appeals about IESG
judgment calls as a completely normal and orderly part of the
process, rather than something sufficiently unusual that either
(i) the IESG treats an appeal as an attack on them
collectively and starts circling the wagons rather than
considering the appeal as a normal and formal request
from the community for reconsideration, or that
(ii) IETF participants believe that they need to fear
retaliation from one or more ADs if they generate appeals
independent of what might or might not be going on with recent
cases, I believe we have seen both phenomena in the last several
years.
This is not an easy problem.
john
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf