There is another problem to do with consensus and the status quo. Say we have a situation where a clear majority of a working group believes that a spec is unworkable unless a particular change is made. A small minority opposes the change for ideological reasons. Should the outcome in this case be: 1) Neither proposal can advance until there is consensus 2) The status quo proposal trumps the position with majority support 3) The majority position is adopted. 4) Both proposals advance In the case that the proposal is an additional feature then 3 and 4 are essentially the same. The problem here is that the positions that are most likely to be held hostage by DISCUSS are cases like this one where there is a clear majority in favor of change but the minority see absolutely no reason to compromise because they consider that they hold an effective veto, the majority can go hang. > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:10 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: "Discuss" criteria > > > to follow up on Dave's note > > > * The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical > > approach or document. There are cases where individual working > > groups or areas have forged rough consensus around a technical > > approach which does not garner IETF consensus. An AD may DISCUSS > > a document where she or he believes this to be the case. While > > the Area Director should describe the technical area where > > consensus is flawed, the focus of the DISCUSS and its resolution > > should be on how to forge a cross-IETF consensus. > > what actual evidence must an AD present to indicate that the > assertion of non-consensus is anywhere but in the one AD's mind? > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf