On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 9:24 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/2/22 21:16, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
> I have less trust now too, but for a completely different reason. The originating email to this thread states that the IESG has already formed an opinion, (Dan is bad) thereby tainting the results of the poll, even if only subconsciously, so that those who may want to be seen in a favorable light by the IESG would naturally back up their previously expoused decision and respond accordingly.
>
> Where the originating email goes on to describe that the IESG does not like to be rebuffed with communication that can be considered both
> antagonistic and hostile, it puts the poll responder on notice to get in line.
+1.
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 don't agree with the premise. Any Last Call is in essence a statement that the IESG is preparing to take some action it believes is appropriate and justified, and wants (or, if you prefer, is required) to test community consensus on that decision. That could be a WG being chartered, a document approaching readiness for publication as an RFC, or a PR action for which supporting evidence appears to exist. This is no different.
I also don't particularly care for the insinuation that there might be reprisals ("disfavor") if the community decides the IESG got it wrong. If the consensus goes against this action, then we'll just end up having to figure out where we go from here. That presumes a lack of integrity. Were I to engage in such reprisals, I would expect to be recalled.
-MSK
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
