This thread brought up many good points but I would like to add one more that Lisa Dusseault made very clearly years ago. That is consensus is measured at a point of time. Many ideas start with people hating them and as people learn more, they may come to like them even thought the idea did not change. Or perhaps the deployment environment changed. The important point is that the results of consensus calls made in the past may or may not have much bearing on the current IETF consensus. I see IETF LC as a clear point where consensus can be measures before the IESG makes a decision. Most documents have very clear consensus by the time they reach IETF LC. For the ones that are not, every WG member is welcome to send comments to IETF LC, if they care - some times they do, mostly they do not. It's very hard to define consensus and I actually think it is better if we don't strive for a formal definition of it. As with many of the best things in life, most of us know it when we see it. The words rough consensus certainly mean to me a lot more than half of the of the informed people. I do not believe that silence can be read as consensus support for a position - it is simply silence - it is not in favor or again. However each chair or AD judging rough consensus chooses to define it for themselves, I hope the definition results in an environment where a document can be progresses by a small group of the willing and only stopped by the outrage of the masses. WIthout that, the willing will simply find a better place to work. And with that, I'm off to read the WHATWG list. Cullen On Jun 23, 2011, at 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. If the consensus in a WG for a document was the same as we saw on ietf@ for this document, and the WG chair declared consensus anyway, there would be some serious talks with that WG AD about the chairs. > > For a document such as this, why even ask for IETF consensus if the IETF consensus doesn't matter? There was a lot of good discussion and a fair number of varied objections to approval of the document. It sounds like the WG was strongly in favor of the document, which may be sufficient motivation to publish it, but the intermediate step of asking for IETF consensus and then not paying attention to the result then seems wasteful of IETF time. > > If the IESG has a policy that "WG consensus trumps IETF consensus", that's fine, but it should be a stated policy so we know where to spend our time. If this document is special for some reason (for example, because it was about policy instead of being a protocol) and therefore the IESG measures consensus differently, that too is fine if we all know that ahead of time. Even a policy of "more than a dozen IETF regulars must object on ietf@ before we will consider overturning a WG" is fine, as long as it is a stated policy. If the IESG has a policy that says "the way we count in IETF Last Call is different than the way we expect Working Group chairs to count in WG Last call", that's fine as well. None of that is obvious from the ballot comments that are visible to the community, however. > > Guidance from the IESG for our future participation in IETF Last Call discussions would be greatly appreciated. We try to save you folks time and effort; such guidance would return the favor to us. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf