On 6/28/2023 7:02 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Strong consensus shouldn't be a reason to relent. I mean, why have the
IESG review it at all if a discuss can be overridden by "strong
consensus". When I brought this up in the wg way back then (ie,
~2013), it sort of reminded me of an echo chamber which happens to
some wg's from time to time -- it wasn't just the main author raining
fire on me. I've always thought of the IESG as sort of a backstop for
when that happens along with its function of tightening things up. I
guess it also begs the question of why it was allowed into their
charter in the first place.
It absolutely is the IESG's job to push back on documents of poor
technical quality even when there is "strong consensus". Or to put it
differently, the criteria for Proposed Standard are not merely "rough
consensus" but also "no known technical omissions". To qualify for
Proposed Standard status, both criteria need to be met.
Keith, you may remember that one of the big gripes against the old IAB
is that it sometimes acted as "technical dictator", and would try impose
specific technical decisions against the will of the working group, or
of the IETF in general. Do you want a repeat? Having a managing body
push back against a "strong consensus" would probably not end well.
-- Christian Huitema
