On Jun 23, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/23/11 4:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Greetings again. The subject line is an honest question, not a >> gripe. >> >> For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/>. >> In short, the IESG just approved publication of >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, even with what appears to be a >> lack of consensus in the comments on the ietf@ mailing list. One AD >> called it "pretty rough", but my quick count shows that it was not >> rough at all: there were more people on the ietf@ against this than >> in favor of it. > > I can't speak for other IESG members, but I made a point of reading the > full text of every IETF LC message about this I-D, and I disagree with > the accuracy of your quick count. It's true that the Last Call did not > achieve unanimity or even smooth consensus, but my reading was that a > few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was > rough consensus to publish. I often get the impression that dissenters are dismissed as "in the rough" and that their opinions, no matter how well expressed, are given less weight than those who are in favor. It was clear to me that there was nowhere nearly consensus on this action, not even "rough consensus", and it was completely inappropriate of IESG to approve it. Rough consensus does not mean you can disregard the opinions of those whom you disagree with. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf