Sam Hartman wrote:
"Andy" == Andy Bierman <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:Andy> This is not an alternative. If you are not willing to make Andy> your technical objections to a technical specification Andy> publicly, then they cannot be part of the IETF Andy> decision-making process. At one level I agree here. Andy> What's to prevent a WG Chair from "padding" the anonymous Andy> "votes"? If 5 people in public (WG meeting or mailing list) Andy> are for some proposal, and the Chair says, "I heard from 6 Andy> people who are against this, but don't want their identities Andy> known, so the proposal is rejected." Not acceptable. I think that would be unacceptable. I think that a WG chair going to people who expressed private concerns and saying something like "Hey, you need to express your concerns in public. They are shared; if all of the people who have these concerns bring them forward then we would have enough interest in dealing with this issue. You have a week," is entirely fine. I also think it is fine for a WG chair to look at private technical concerns, realize they are correct and raise them to the WG. "I received a private concern; that mail pointed out that the following trivial attack will break the security of this protocol. We are not moving forward until someone fixes this problem or someone explains why I'm misunderstanding the situation."
I don't understand why such a comment needs to be private. Once the issue comes to light in the WG, it is no longer going to be private. You are assuming the Chair can and should be a proxy for a WG member who wishes to remain anonymous. I disagree.
It's probably even fine to say "I received a lot of private concerns. Are the people willing to make public comments firmly behind their support?"
I am specifically referring to technical comments. I realize that WG members may have non-technical concerns which are appropriate to convey to the Chair privately. I think the IETF consensus process is severely flawed. Many times I have encountered deadlocks because 3 people are strongly for something, 3 people are strongly against it, and 40 people couldn't care less which way the decision goes. Determining consensus based on hearsay and humming makes matters even worse.
--Sam
Andy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf