>>>>> "John" == John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Scott O Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>>> * 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?
>>
>> None. But the AD must be willing to propose a procedure that
>> the rest of the IESG can go along with to determine whether
>> there is in fact a lack of consensus or wether the AD is wrong.
>> This style of discuss is much more of a "Hold on here, let's
>> work together to check consensus," than a "I'm blocking this
>> document for ever."
John> This is venturing into dangerous territory. The best
John> expertise on the technical issues involved _should_ be in
John> the WG that produced the document. Expecting to find
John> _better_ expertise within the IESG seems less than
John> rational...
For this type of discuss, the IESG is not making a technical judgment,
but rather a judgment of consensus and process. And expecting the
IESG to understand our process and be able to execute it is hopefully
a rational judgment.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf