I'm in the group that likes this document, thinks it will help us move forward, and thinks we should stop babbling and just do it. That said, I have a issue with what Ross says: > Two things that I don't seem to have picked up on: (i) Any consensus that a 3 step > process is better than a 2 step process; (ii) Any hint of moving towards an agreement > on other things that we might do to improve the process. The issue is that we aren't looking for consensus that what we have is better than what's being proposed. What we're looking for is consensus that what's being proposed is better than what we have. That is, a proposal for change needs to establish consensus FOR THE CHANGE, not the other way around. It's up to Jari and the rest of the IESG to determine whether we have that rough consensus. I'm not sure. In numbers, we seem to -- it's mostly a vocal few who are urging us not to do it. The thing is that, as we know, rough consensus isn't just a numbers game, and one or two reasonable minority arguments can derail things. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf