On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:21 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > Paul's assertion that public postings to the IETF Discussion > list are the only metric for "IETF Consensus" is NOT correct > -- and never has been in the past. Come on, Ran. I never said "only metric", did I? This whole thread is about asking the IESG how they determine IETF consensus, with this being an example. The IETF Discussion list and the the IESG balloting history are the only observable metrics we have, thus my question on this thread. > "IETF Consensus" includes ALL of the inputs that the IESG > receives about a document or issue that is put to IETF > Last Call. The Last Call announcement specifically says, > for example, that comments may be sent privately to the > IESG. Completely correct. > Consensus inputs are NOT limited to posted public comments, > BUT ALSO include formal liaisons, communications with various > WG Chairs (not limited to the sponsoring WG), private email > to the IESG, private email to an AD, and more. Completely correct. You also left out the shepherd report, which also contains valuable information about the level of consensus in the WG. And you have now listed so many variables, it begs the question: how does the IESG actually make the call when the observable comments on ietf@ make consensus seem questionable? > Note also that this is THE SAME as how WG Chairs are supposed > to operate. WG Chairs are supposed to consider ALL inputs, > NOT ONLY public postings to the WG list, BUT ALSO private > inputs from WG participants and other applicable folks, > and whatever other inputs arrive after a WG Last Call is > announced. We probably disagree here: I don't think that WG chairs should make consensus decisions based on private inputs that cannot be validated. Doing so is begging for WG chair over-reaching. > I hear that Paul H is unhappy with this particular outcome, ...which means that you did not read the messages I sent. I explicitly said I didn't care about this one, which is why I didn't say anything during the Last Call. > but there is no evidence of any kind of process problem > or process mistake here. Nor did I say that there was. I asked a question that this particular Draft helps illuminate, and I did so after talking to ADs who thought there were indeed interesting process problems. YMMV. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf