On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:10:28PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/3/2021 12:01 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Documents published on the IETF stream require IETF Consensus. > > > > If we are still arguing over what text to include relating to issues for > > which there is no prior discussion and prior determination of consensus, > > how can there be IETF consensus? > > > Except that we weren't still arguing. Note the part where I said "I do not assert that any or all of the predicates are in fact true"; your claim seems irrelevant to my point. > The feeding frenzy only began because a couple of people made private > comments to the IESG. One was pressed to go public. My impression is > that the other had not intended their concerns to go public. > > That private comments to the IESG are not automatically surfaced, in > some fashion, for public resolution, is a process point the IESG and the > IETF might want to consider, so that a frenzy like this happens at a > more reasonable point. My understanding is that it is intentionally a supported part of the process for the IESG to be able to receive private feedback. (This would be why it is specifically listed as something covered by the Note Well.) The IESG or IESG members who receive feedback can do several things with that feedback, including incorporating the technical points made into their own ballot positions and asking for public discussion of those technical points, with or without the direct involvement of the person who submitted the feedback. I think there's pretty universal sentiment that getting earlier feedback is preferred, but I don't think that adding more process is going to cause the phenomenon of late feedback to disappear. -Ben P.S. I think there is still an open (editorial) question regarding "the message in which they both are present", for which I need more data to be able to suggest a resolution. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
