On Jun 23, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I can't speak for other IESG members, but I made a point of reading the
full text of every IETF LC message about this I-D, and I disagree with
the accuracy of your quick count. It's true that the Last Call did not
achieve unanimity or even smooth consensus, but my reading was that a
few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was
rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection"
otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong.
And this goes back to my question of how the IESG wants to deal with consensus
calls on ietf@. You say "a few folks", but my count says that there were six
people who actively said "do not publish", and a few more who hinted at it. On
the positive side, there were about five from the WG who said "publish" and a
couple who said "let's just move on".
I do not put the latter into the "positive" category, but you might. However,
in general, I have heard ADs tell WG chairs *not* to consider "I'm tired of
this, publish this and move on" as useful input to the WG consensus process. Is
it more useful in the IETF consensus process? Given that a WG has already
worked hard on a document, I can see where such sentiment on ietf@ would be
considered positive, but it would be good to hear that explicitly.
Said a different way, what needs to happen in IETF Last Call to overcome "we
already discussed this in the WG" (which was the majority of the positive
comments in this case)? Does a non-WG member need to do more, and if so what?
--Paul Hoffman
P.S. As someone noted offline, I did not voice my opinion on this document in
IETF Last Call. That's correct: I didn't (and don't) care that much about the
outcome either way. I do care about knowing how IETF consensus is judged,
however.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf