Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



thanks Spencer for pointing this part out.

On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

 IESG reviews should be considered as a review of "last resort".  Most
 documents reviewed by the IESG are produced and reviewed in the
 context of IETF working groups.  In those cases, the IESG cannot
 overrule working group consensus without good reason; informed
 community consensus should prevail.

The idea that WG consensus should prevail is simply incorrect.  It biases IESG in an inappropriate way.

There are a number of very good reasons for overriding WG consensus, e.g.

- there is no evidence of broad community consensus or a clear lack of broad community consensus
- the document does not meet the criteria specified in 2026 (or other document when applicable)
- the document is ambiguous in such a way that it is likely to degrade interoperability

The WG DOES NOT represent the entire community.    Far too often, WGs are deliberately chartered in such a way as to marginalize parts of the community

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]