On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:51:27PM -0400, John Levine wrote: > Unfortunately, you only need a few people willing to die on every > molehill to blow up a consensus process. IETF rough consensus more or > less appoints WG chairs and the IESG to decide when the molehillers > would have stood aside. Not so. Rough consensus does not mean unanimity. I've been on the rough side of consensus even when I thought I had a winning technical argument. Rough consensus does mean that we need an authority to decide it, and that is typically a WG chair for WG consensus, and so on. And consensus calls can be challenged via appeals. That's the process. Being willing to die on a hill cannot stop a document progressing as-is if the IETF is intent on publishing it.
