-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John and Dave,
having reviewed the thread, I sense a reasonably strong consensus in the
community that "this is a good idea, someone needs to do it, we're not
really objecting to the IESG doing it by declaration".
I like IESG statements - because they are IESG statements, it's clear
that the IESG is responsible for making them, and they don't have to
claim that the community has been consulted thoroughly and clearly
demonstrated a consensus for whatever action is needed.
Establishing consensus takes time - especially for issues where the
community really has rather few members who want to debate the details
of the issue, and many would much prefer that someone else do something
that's within reasonable distance of OK, but won't really engage in the
debate.
I've found that the longer I'm away from the administrative regions of
the IETF, the harder I find it to find energy to engage myself in
debates about things that are already approximately OK. And I think
there are many who are even less willing to engage on these issues than
I am.
I'm glad the IESG is grasping the nettle and making a declaration here.
It's a much better thing to do than to let the issue linger for months
and years while we wait for enough people to engage on the issue for a
consensus to be declared.
Yours, pessimistically - Harald
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSeF9GAAoJEIjUFboxkRizqM8H+wbXz4813LEh730TJIEMSdyc
msmy2wEF64yh13yJ+I75n4qfJQV0mUFcqjvNiGQF/YKEJtOPpfcpnDPWYLNSdfQu
/anOvi1niiMjekkfcPFofr+KkCLjc3RffAdWm1mSdWaFFi4Ij5Z9qoWXgq0THPe5
Z9mAv6hqVDBFik7Y4JUOGHGMkl/uiDnvE0aJAzTQKPMTc3Z9fHdiO4BMStIk71wY
L9Un+UUMfUPfNFKWbOMnixLOqFCeDqUpyBQCPS2Y1LLchavrZUTqBRMllfzVBDMj
TCc9yX2lUnvsbromqgNwSkkq4e3iAXMzBo1tWYJnD75BBkKe8uu4GM4n1fa69do=
=N1Fy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----