On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Dave Cridland
<dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net<mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>> wrote:
I suspect the closest we get to getting an idea of IETF consensus is the
interest gauging at the beginning of the process, though interestingly this is
only positive interest - objections to doing the work at all aren't really
relevant here. The IETF consensus on the charter is handled by Apathy Is Assent
rules, so claiming that this consensus call becomes the default is an
interesting argument to make.
Working group charters go by much less frequently than new drafts; the burden
of checking them is about as low as any comprehensive review burden in the IETF
can possibly get. So if you don't comment on a charter when it goes by, and
you don't comment on the work the working group does, you have only yourself to
blame. The IETF doesn't have members, so we can't say "only 10% of IETFers
like this idea, so we won't bother with it." We don't have voting, so we
can't issue a ballot and count up the yeas and nays. If you want to limit the
number of RFCs published, you need to voluntarily do the work that is required
to make that happen. If you think there's a problem with the charter, and you
raise it on the IETF mailing list, there will be no shortage of discussion.
Trust me on this.
OK, so we don't have voting but we do have a quorum? How wonderful. And given
that the majority of people are silent means they agree (with, mind, everything
- not just that they're not reading), so any number of people are therefore
"few".
Right. We don't have members, so we can't have a quorum. That's just not
how the IETF operates. If you prefer to operate in an SDO that operates that
way, you can either change the IETF, or work in a different SDO.
I strongly feel that positive statements have value, as they allow the
community to gauge the level of review and consensus, and I suspect that human
nature means that we get more reviews if people get to brag about it.
If the only reason you are doing a review is so you can brag about it, that
seems a bit useless to me. But in any case, as you say, Pete made his point,
you don't agree with it, it's a matter of opinion, so we're bikeshedding.
FWIW, my reason for responding to these questions on
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> is that before I
became an AD, I actually didn't _know_ how IETF consensus was determined, and
had to do quite a bit of looking around to figure it out when I suddenly needed
to know. So I thought it was worth sharing; if in fact there are a lot of
IETF participants who think this is the wrong way to handle last call, you
really ought to get together and do a BOF. That too is how the IETF thinks
about things—it is only a bureaucratic quagmire if you make it one. Should it
really be _easy_ to change how the IETF evaluates consensus?