Hi Keith, > On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:24 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In a normal Last Call, anyone is free to object without significant > reprisal. In this case, anyone can see that by objecting they'd be > courting disfavor from those in power. That's not a consensus call at > all. I’m curious as to what you think the right approach would have been, then. Let’s review. BCP 83 says: A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to be abusive of the consensus-driven process. So, the initiation of the PR-Action requires that the IESG form some opinion as to the whether the cited messages “appear to be abusive of the consensus-driven process”. “In the IESG’s opinion”, IMO, communicates two things. First, that the IESG has done its duty according to BCP 83 to weigh the facts presented and come to some opinion about them (“appear to be abusive”). Second, that the IESG acknowledges that this is an opinion only and doesn’t assert it as incontrovertible fact. Read the consensus call message again without those four words. Would it be better that way? Or might you object that the statement would then be implicitly presented as if a fact, rather than an opinion? Beyond that, would you see it as other than disingenuous for the IESG to have posted a PR Action that took pains to avoid directly expressing any opinion? Given the requirements of BCP 83, how would that even be done? Would the consensus call use language like “the IESG has heard that people are saying”? Doesn’t the simple posting of the PR Action consensus call represent a de facto expression of opinion, regardless of the niceties of the language used? Thanks, —John P.S.: For avoidance of doubt: as far as I’m concerned, anyone is free to object to this last call, without reprisal. While I haven’t consulted with my colleagues before sending this, I have no reason to believe any of them would feel differently. (Needless to say, this doesn’t represent carte blanche to object in terms that would be considered unacceptable in any other IETF mailing list context, there isn’t some special aura of “anything goes” that attaches to this thread. It pains me that I feel the need to say this.) -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
