ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Montevideo statement

2013-10-09 12:07:47

On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom 
<tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)gondrom(_dot_)org> wrote:

On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom 
<tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)gondrom(_dot_)org>
 wrote:

But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay
and getting input from the community.

This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two 
weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason.  I think 
there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever 
represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call.

So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the 
IAB or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting 
consensus?   I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong 
opinion on the answer.   But if the answer is that we need consensus, then 
we actually need to do a consensus call.

The only value I see in "a few days" would be an opportunity for 
wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as 
expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what 
was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have 
been corrected.   If that is what you were asking for, then that does make 
sense.

(thinking out loud...)



Yes, that is what is was thinking about. Probably wisdom of the crowds could 
have helped with the wordsmithing part. 

I imagine that's exctly the part of course that they aren't interested in once 
they're hashed out a high-level statement (and have general agreement between 
the signatories ) is more input. 

It seems dramatically simpler to just make the satement as individuals who put 
their name on something.


And in my view even some little feedback (3-7 days) is better than none. And 
just to be clear: with such a short comment option, the goal is just comments 
not to get a rough consensus. 


We have a process for obtaining consensus. It takes a little while.

All the best, Tobias


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>