On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:21 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Paul's assertion that public postings to the IETF Discussion
list are the only metric for "IETF Consensus" is NOT correct
-- and never has been in the past.
Come on, Ran. I never said "only metric", did I? This whole thread is about
asking the IESG how they determine IETF consensus, with this being an example.
The IETF Discussion list and the the IESG balloting history are the only
observable metrics we have, thus my question on this thread.
"IETF Consensus" includes ALL of the inputs that the IESG
receives about a document or issue that is put to IETF
Last Call. The Last Call announcement specifically says,
for example, that comments may be sent privately to the
IESG.
Completely correct.
Consensus inputs are NOT limited to posted public comments,
BUT ALSO include formal liaisons, communications with various
WG Chairs (not limited to the sponsoring WG), private email
to the IESG, private email to an AD, and more.
Completely correct. You also left out the shepherd report, which also contains
valuable information about the level of consensus in the WG.
And you have now listed so many variables, it begs the question: how does the
IESG actually make the call when the observable comments on ietf@ make
consensus seem questionable?
Note also that this is THE SAME as how WG Chairs are supposed
to operate. WG Chairs are supposed to consider ALL inputs,
NOT ONLY public postings to the WG list, BUT ALSO private
inputs from WG participants and other applicable folks,
and whatever other inputs arrive after a WG Last Call is
announced.
We probably disagree here: I don't think that WG chairs should make consensus
decisions based on private inputs that cannot be validated. Doing so is begging
for WG chair over-reaching.
I hear that Paul H is unhappy with this particular outcome,
...which means that you did not read the messages I sent. I explicitly said I
didn't care about this one, which is why I didn't say anything during the Last
Call.
but there is no evidence of any kind of process problem
or process mistake here.
Nor did I say that there was. I asked a question that this particular Draft
helps illuminate, and I did so after talking to ADs who thought there were
indeed interesting process problems. YMMV.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf