On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:24:40PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > > >--On Tuesday, 05 July, 2005 08:47 -0700 Bill Manning > ><bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>>I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC > >>>2780 is in force. > >>>Especially since there is a clear path for Larry Roberts to > >>>ask for IETF consensus, which by definition would overrule > >>>the IESG. > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> > >>> > >> > >> just for my edification, how is IETF consensus determined, > >> esp. when there is a need to "overrule the IESG"? in other > >> contexts, this type of thing is done by a vote of the > >>membership, > >> but last i checked, there are no members of the IETF. > > > > > >As far as I can tell, there are only two ways: > > Middle posting: I think John and Bill are missing the > primary mechanism which is *trusting* the relevant AD to > call the IETF consensus honestly, even if s/he doesn't > agree with it. That shouldn't be hard to accept, since > we extend the same trust to every WG Chair. > > If the AD makes the wrong call, then complaints, appeals and even > recalls are available. if John is correct, and your statements are correct, then IETF consensus kind of depends on IESG tacit approval... and why would the IESG approve something that would "second-guess" or "overrule" a choice they already made? Me thinks that we have a -VERY- high threshold to challange an IESG fiat. And this may be bad for the continued health/relevence of the IETF. Or not... development can and does occur in other fora. The IETF may not see the work until it is cooked. --bill > > Brian > > > > > (i) We ask the IESG if they think they have been > > overruled. In the nasty and impolite old days, the > > question was often stated at open plenaries, with at > > least the possibility of [real or virtual] over-ripe > > fruit moving through the air in the IESG's direction. > > Today, when a larger percentage of the community seems > > either inclined to suffer in silence or disinclined to > > speak up, the message from the community probably needs > > to be much more clear, and the consensus stronger, for > > the IESG to reach that conclusion. > > > > (ii) Someone appeals, essentially asking the IAB whether > > the IESG has been overruled. The problem with this path > > is that, in the last decade, the IAB has tended to be > > deferential to the IESG's determinations about community > > consensus. That determination is often hard to make, > > the various procedural documents appear to assign the > > job of making it to the IESG, and the IAB has tended to > > want to look at procedural issues on appeals and to not > > review the IESG's judgment calls. > > > >Perhaps, in both cases, that is how we want it. If it is not, > >perhaps this is the time to start making procedural changes. > >But, in either case, the difficulties implied by the above are > >the greatest part of what makes statements such as the last > >clause in the IESG's rejection of the Roberts registration > >request particularly troubling: if the IESG has already > >concluded the community consensus is sufficiently unlikely that > >they recommend against trying to obtain it, the amount of > >consensus, and ways of demonstrating it, that would be needed to > >get them to decide their conclusion was incorrect and they had > >been overruled may set an impossibly high barrier. > > > > john > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf