-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:48 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Paul Hoffman; The IESG
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
It's problematic, and I believe inappropriate, to consider WG consensus
as contributing to community consensus. The two questions need to be
considered separately, for two reasons:
1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of
the whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents
only one side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately
chartered in such a way as to minimize the potential for conflict
within the group.
By contrast, working groups tend to contain more expertise than may be
available in an IETF LC; that's partly why they're formed. I've never been an
AD before, but I imagine I might consider the WG consensus to be at least a
little bit more weighty than IETF LC resistance.
For that matter, if you object vehemently to something a WG produces, then the
work is of interest to you, and I have to wonder why you weren't at least
silently tracking that working group in the first place.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf