In reading the messages posted to the list relating to the GEOPRIV WG meeting at IETF 68, it strikes me that we have a situation in which a deadlock was allowed to persist for much too long. Whether "standard" or "alternative" mechanisms of consensus determination can resolve this situation seems almost besides the point -- a huge amount of energy and time has already been wasted. Looking backwards, many of the IETF's most heated battles did in fact resolve themselves in clear outcomes, but only years afterwards once it become clear that one or more of the proposed approaches had little or no support in the marketplace. For example, recall the LDP vs. RSVP-TE debate. Given this, I would suggest that debating whether the IESG did the right or wrong thing at IETF 68 is somewhat besides the point. Instead, I would like to ask whether we are furthering the interest of the Internet community by allowing deadlocks to persist for long periods, rather than quickly recognizing them and defusing the situation by publishing the competing approaches, allowing the market to decide which one is "best". Cullen Jennings said: "Area Directors who manipulate schedules and agendas in order to predetermine the outcome of consensus calls should, in our opinion, be summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV working group chairs believe this transpired in IETF 68, we urge them to pursue such a recourse." Ted Hardie said: I urge them not to. Let's try to work this out without creaking into effect a never-used aspect of our process. Pushing it to that extreme looks contrary to our usual effort to achieve consensus; let's continue talking to each other instead. If either the Area Directors or chairs is no longer willing to talk about the problems and resolve them, I think we're in a sorry state. If we've gotten there, let's try and back away. John Schnizlein said: There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the network operator in order to create a business of providing it. There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not just procedural lapse. Martin Dawson said: The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong. James Polk said: energy and misrepresentation doesn't make things right either.... _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf