On 10/3/22 10:20, Murray S. Kucherawy 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 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 disagree. Most of our Last Calls are about whether the
community should endorse publication of a particular document.
It's a big deal, and the stakes are often high, as people have
often invested years of their work lives in writing such a
document. But usually the biggest consequence of the Last Call
evaluation is whether the document becomes a consensus document or
an informational or experimental one. There's long been a strong
sense from the community that IETF has an obligation to publish
working group output in some form; that working groups, at least,
should not labor for years and then have their labor discarded.
(I generally agree.)
This proposed action is different. Whether or not it's
warranted, it's clearly a personal attack on Dan. IESG has made
its intentions clear. It isn't acting as any sort of neutral-ish
party. And I certainly feel like I'm putting my neck on the
chopping block (metaphorically) by even discussing this PR-action
without stating support for it. I've received several private
emails insisting that I'm wrong for stating an opinion about it
because I'm "in the rough", as if we aren't supposed to think and
speak for ourselves but instead fall in with the herd.
I do believe and appreciate that IESG is following the prescribed
process; that doesn't mean that I think it's wise or constructive
or helpful to the community for IESG to try this. I'm trying to
reserve final judgment, though, until I finish a detailed review
of all of the documents cited in the Last Call.
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.
Thanks for the clarification.
Keith
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
