On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> wrote:
That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that
in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order:
a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for
whatever reason, is expected to do nothing.
b) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for
whatever reason, should write nothing.
c) IETF-wide consensus is not judged here. IETF-wide apathy is IETF-wide
consensus.
It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working group
existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not have been
chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to publish, therefore, it
is assumed that the IETF has consensus to publish the document, because the
IETF tasked the working group to go off and do its work, and the working group
did it.
Therefore, silence during IETF last call is not interpreted as apathy, but
rather a lack of objection to the completion of a process that the IETF chose
to embark on and that the IETF has brought to completion, through the
instrument of the working group that produced the document.
This is in fact how consensus is evaluated during IETF last call. If you
think it should be done differently, write up a document and get IETF consensus
on it, and we can change the procedure to whatever you think it should be.
Maybe it would be an improvement.