Subject: RE: Consensus based on reading tea leaves (was: Re: Alternative formatsfor IDs)

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 08:23:02 +0200

> I can't imagine that ever encouraging the IESG to decide 
> that they know what IETF consensus "really" is, 
> while disregarding public comment, 
> is ever going to be a good thing to do. 

How did you read that into what we said?
We never said that IETF consensus should not be gauged.
Quite the contrary, we said that we don't want four emails 
on the IETF list  to be used as a proxy for consensus.

We wrote a draft precisely in order to get the same treatment 
that other drafts get.
If there is no WG that deals with the subject,
then perhaps the right way to check the will of the IETF community
is to ask for a hum at one of the plenary sessions.

We believe that in such a broad forum there will be
strong support for leaving the dark ages of ASCII.

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 08:37:42 -0600

Hi, Yaakov,

Just FYI, I am actually fairly sympathetic to the idea that ASCII documents, 
including ASCII artwork, do not represent the highest possible evolution of 
protocol specification technology - my concern in this thread is only about 
how the IESG gauges IETF concensus.

*In the IETF*, where we have no concept of formal membership, no concept of 
voting, and no concept of required meeting attendance, we have chosen to 
require declared concensus to be based on public comments on relevant 
mailing lists.

We could certainly base declared consensus on other things. My point is that 
doing so likely requires a fundamental rethink of IETF process - simply 
encouraging the IESG to disregard the current IETF process BCPs on a 
case-by-case basis does not point me in any direction I'm comfortable with, 
and nicely justifies anyone who wants to appeal the decision as a process 
violation - not likely to make change happen MORE quickly...

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: RE: Consensus based on reading tea leaves (was: Re: Alternative 
formatsfor IDs)

Y(J)S