Hi Pete,
At 09:33 29-10-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
See other messages. I think the intention is to make it a consensus
Informational document.
Ok. As the document is Informational I'll read it according to BCP 9.
I think section 3 is pretty clear that the chair must exercise
technical judgment in many cases. Your hypothetical is the extreme
case not mentioned in the document. If the group says that the sky
is green, *and* nobody questions that assertion, *and* the chair
suspects the sky is not green, I believe it is reasonable for the
chair to pose the question to the WG: "Are we sure the sky is
green?" If the working group simply says "Yes" without explanation,
I think the chair is within bounds to say, just as they are if
someone else had raised the issue, "I don't think the group has
truly considered and weighed this issue such that I can declare
(rough) consensus on this point." But this must be done *extremely*
carefully. Chairs who insert their technical judgment too often or
too heavy-handedly risk losing the confidence of the group as an
impartial consensus caller. Better might be for the chair to
(perhaps quietly) solicit a review from a sky color expert from
another working group, asking for them to comment on this sky being
green issue. But having the document go forward with a technical
issue that the chair knows about but that the rest of the working
group hasn't noticed is, I think, to shirk responsibility as a
member of the community.
All that said, I wonder if it's necessary to say this in the
document. It's a more general comment about the chair role rather
than about consensus per se.
I preferred to use a case which is not related to any IETF
discussion. The reason I brought this up is because the Chair may
not be viewed as impartial (re. above comment). Thanks for
explaining the above.
I think (hope) that if we start thinking about consensus the way the
document describes, appeals (at least in the early form, where it's
simply discussing the issue with the chair or the AD) would not be
nearly so fraught.
Yes.
I've added a bit to section 5. Send text if you think it is not sufficient.
I'll send text off-list if I notice anything.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy