On 24 Jun 2011, at 11:50 , Paul Hoffman wrote: > And you have now listed so many variables, it begs the question: Paul, I disagree that it begs that question. The IETF processes have always been open to ALL inputs from whatever source, in all parts of its processes. You write that text above as if listening to all inputs is news, and it just isn't. > how does the IESG actually make the call when the observable > comments on ietf@ make consensus seem questionable? The make their best effort determination, just as they always do. That is how things have ALWAYS worked. It works well. Consensus in the IETF has NEVER been a numbers game, counting merely the public postings. The IETF doesn't vote. Just counting the numbers of public postings would be voting, and this organisation has made a quite explicit decision NOT to vote. I'm told IEEE 802 votes, and I'm told they are happy with the results. That's great for them, if true, but it isn't sensible for IETF. To repeat some of what Don Eastlake wrote (I read his note just after sending my earlier note): > But a narrow rule that the IESG is required to put on blinders and > only consider the IETF discussion list IETF Last Call email, > ignoring previous discussions on other relevant IETF mailing lists > and ignoring WG, area, and IETF plenary meeting discussions they > have attended, is just arbitrary nonsense. I totally agree with Don's quoted text just above. There is not now, has never been, and could never be a crisp rule defining a formula or algorithm on how the IESG determines consensus (or on how a WG Chair determines consensus). I know of a large number of cases where one or more people sent private inputs to WG Chair(s) or to IESG folks on some Last Call item -- simply to avoid IETF-related controversy. Cheers, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf