> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:48 AM > To: Stephen Farrell > Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Paul Hoffman; The IESG > Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document? > > It's problematic, and I believe inappropriate, to consider WG consensus > as contributing to community consensus. The two questions need to be > considered separately, for two reasons: > > 1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of > the whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents > only one side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately > chartered in such a way as to minimize the potential for conflict > within the group. By contrast, working groups tend to contain more expertise than may be available in an IETF LC; that's partly why they're formed. I've never been an AD before, but I imagine I might consider the WG consensus to be at least a little bit more weighty than IETF LC resistance. For that matter, if you object vehemently to something a WG produces, then the work is of interest to you, and I have to wonder why you weren't at least silently tracking that working group in the first place. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf