On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hiya,
On 02/06/2020 23:11, Ted Hardie wrote:
> I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their remit (just as
> the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the registration date change policy that
> I referenced many messages ago).
Ah. That's a surprise to me. I don't believe that the
concept of the LLC calling consensus of a discussion
of the IETF community was a part of iasa2 at all. Or if
it was, I missed it. Of course the LLC needs to watch
and be reactive to community discussion, but calling
consensus, being a term of art around here, isn't how
I'd describe that.
I think we expect it of any of our community selected leaders, including WG chairs, IESG and son. Given that the IETF LLC board a set of community selected leaders, I don't think it's strange to expect them to be able to call consensus.
> So, I think they are the victims set up
> to do that in this case.
>
> Since you referenced the magic number 14, I conclude we still disagree..
Referring to zero, or 14, as magic numbers, is an excellent rhetorical
way to disparage my argument
Didn't mean to disparage it, and I apologize if it came across that way. I just meant that 14 matched the number of IESG members and not the number of LLC Board members.
regards,
Ted
(I'm not at all
complaining btw, I like it:-) I could as well claim that
the numbers in Jay's mail were magical, but meh.
>
> I think we do agree that there should be public discussion. I think we do
> agree that the LLC and IESG should talk to each other about the
> implications of different strategies to both the ongoing work of the IETF
> and its financial future. I think we do agree that any conclusion would be
> revisited in the light of evidence of how it ends up working.
Yep.
>
> But our disagreement on on who the stuckee is remains.
Yep again.
Cheers,
S.
