Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Even if all decisions are strictly ratified on the mailing list and
> And of course, doing things in private undermines IETF's ability to
> Even if all decisions are strictly ratified on the mailing list and
> subject to Last Call feedback, we all know that some working group
> participants look like "insiders" while others look like "outsiders" and
> the insiders have an advantage when trying to influence the working
> group's document.
Yes, and I don't think this is a bad thing. This is why we use "consensus", rather than voting or unanimity.
After all, everyone's opinion cannot carry equal weight on every document. I might comment on a Transport Area document, but I can accept that they might say "thanks for playing", and not invite me to a design team (this is the right thing).
> By the time a working group has mostly-agreed on the
> shape of the document, outsiders may be able to get minor or peripheral
> changes made, but they'll have a very hard time getting major concerns
> dealt with if those changes require substantial reworking of the document.
Yes. Sometimes, one is a leader. Sometimes, one is a follower. I'm OK with just spotting bugs and things most of the time.
If I felt a real conceptual conflict, I would write my own draft.
> And of course, doing things in private undermines IETF's ability to
> claim to be a consensus-building organization. I see no legitimate
> benefit to that whatsoever.
Well, I don't agree with this one. By the time there is an interim working group meeting or a design team, any competent chair will have made sure it is likely to succeed. That is pretty much the job.
The process in RFC 2418, like most IETF process documents, is designed to allow a lot of latitude.
thanks,
Rob
