Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 10/08/2014 23:18, John Leslie wrote:
(a) IMHO it is not appropriate for a WGC to delegate calling consensus;
In general, agreed. But if all WG chairs are conflicted on a draft
(and that can happen, if rarely) then either they have to delegate
"up" to the Area Directors, or if that isn't possible for some
reason, there would be no choice but to ask someone else in the WG
to step in.
I thought of this issue minutes after posting. ;^)
My impression has always been that if none of the WGCs feel able to
do the consensus call (which _does_ happen), they _ask_ one of the ADs
for their area to do so. If neither AD feels able, I believe the
Responsible AD designates someone else to do the consensus call.
The Responsible AD may at any time (without IESG action) appoint an
additional WGC, so the practice as I describe it here is clearly legal.
(c) the determination of IETF Consensus is not "based on" public review;
but is always subject to appeal.
It's based on the comments made during public review. I think the word
"public" is important - the consensus call should not be based on
private information. This is made very clear by the definition in
RFC 2026:
"Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage [sic] the level of
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action."
I agree that is the 2026 langugage (which prevails, BTW).
But I believe that the 2026 language specifies the _purpose_ of
the Last-Call period; and does not strictly limit what the WGC may
call upon to judge consensus.
Often, in practice, the WGC calls consensus for something based
upon obviously inadequate posted comments in reply. (BTW I'm always
pleased to see a WGC chair declare the posted comments less than
adequate!)
I do not read the 2026 language to prohibit that -- but it is
certainly reasonable grounds for appeal if the posted comments are
less than adequate to _judge_ consensus. Such appeals are _extremely_
rare.
Thus I'd agree with "partly based on" or even "mainly based on";
but I read SM's question as "strictly based on".
YMMV...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>