<snip> We could certainly base declared consensus on other things. My point is that doing so likely requires a fundamental rethink of IETF process - simply encouraging the IESG to disregard the current IETF process BCPs on a case-by-case basis does not point me in any direction I'm comfortable with, and nicely justifies anyone who wants to appeal the decision as a process violation - not likely to make change happen MORE quickly... [YJS] That is why we proposed that the draft be part of a process change process. We purposely wanted to avoid the question that William Leibzon asked here on the general list, namely how many of the people who follow the general list are against using alternative formats. We have seen based on past discussions that there is a strong corrleation between following the general list and not admitting to be able to read any format other than ASCII. We need some rethinking as to how to judge what the IETF community as a whole wants to do about some general issues. The only thing I am sure about is that consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly as it is. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf