On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, at 00:31, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:33 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 7/30/23 12:45, John C Klensin wrote:> During the first part of the pandemic, the> IESG took on a great deal of authority because it was necessary> and I, for one, really appreciate them doing that. But we> (including the IESG and LLC) need to get back to remembering> that IETF consensus arises out of community discussion and> (rough) agreement, with the IESG evaluating and confirming that> consensus. Whatever a discussion or decision within the IESG,> some WG or other meeting, or even by the LLC, may be, it is not,> without a clear opportunity for informed whole-community> discussion, IETF consensus.+1.+2
I was about to add my own +N, but then I thought about status-quo bias, and intertia, and figured this is how empires die - so much accreted barnacle load that they can't make changes any more. I don't think you could get strong consensus in the IETF on anything of this scale. You probably couldn't get strong consensus in favour of 3 meetings per year if you started from a null hypothesis.
Not saying I think we should change from 3 meetings per year, but also - it's going to already get favourable support due to being the current pattern, so I don't think we need a more strong consensus than our already considerable "rough" for considering other options.
Regards,
Bron.
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
