Subject: [EAI] Consensus-determining procedures

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:49:49 -0500

(writing as co-chair)

Hi.  

In the interest of full disclosure and avoidance of surprises...

Joseph, Alexey, and I had a discussion about how to organize
consensus calls on the many issues that have been brought up by
reviewers or by the responses to those reviews.

We concluded that, since I've been much more actively involved
in the discussions, have written a review response, and have
taken positions on several issues, Joseph will make the final
decisions about consensus calls (in terms of questions to be
asked), ask the questions, and evaluate the results.  I provided
him (and the design/author team) a preliminary list of draft
questions, but he will need to add additional questions and is
free to use my list (or not use it) in whatever way he finds
appropriate.

I've also given him two pieces of advice which, again, he can
ignore if he is so inclined:

	(1) That he check proposed text with the author group in
	the hope of saving the WG time.  That proposed text
	isn't about answers, just draft questions.
	
	(2) That he try to get agreement, and call consensus as
	appropriate, on broad issues before trying to lock down
	the details.  For example, we decide whether we really
	need a parameter on the MAIL command before trying to
	formally reach consensus on what that parameter should
	be called, whether it has values, etc.

best,
   john

p.s. for those who joined the WG list since this was last
mentioned, there is a separate mailing list to which all
document authors have been invited to subscribe (at least one
author is subscribed for each document) and which also includes
the co-chairs, secretary, and both ADs.  It is variously
referred to as the design team list (which is how it started,
long ago) or the author list, but really serves a coordination
function rather than a design or equivalent one.  It obeys all
of the usual constraints for a standing design team list, with
the additional constraint that it has retired from design and
hence isn't even trying to guide or offer options to the WG from
a design standpoint.  I don't believe its existence should
affect the WG in any significant way, but wanted to be sure
(again) that it wasn't a secret either.