Sam Hartman wrote:
RJ Atkinson <rja(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
RJ> I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would
RJ> reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce
RJ> IETF and WG consensus about this specification.
Ran, I just checked, and you don't seem to be a 6man chair. We
generally ask chairs, not involved participants to judge WG consensus
and ADs to judge IETF consensus.
So, I think what you're saying boils down to you disagree with Eliot
because you believe his comments would reduce clarity. You believe
others within the WG and outside the WG are likely to agree with you.
That's all fine and is valuable to contribute.
However, I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion
when participants try to call consensus.
Thanks for considering my input.
This applies not only to individuals alleging "consensus", but in just
the same way to WG chairs, ADs and the IESG to allege "consensus" for
a change without performing a consensus call that properly lists
options and their tradeoffs.
The only exception is, that IETF leadership (WG chairs, AD, IESG)
could assert their leadership privilege to make a specific choice.
In this case, however, they should label it as such (a leadership
decision). For resolving issues that individuals have with
leadership decisions, there is the appeals process.
-Martin