On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > First, "no objection" and silence by IESG members are roughly > equivalent, but approval of a document with complete community > silence (either outside the relevant WG or on an individual > submission) makes some ADs nervous (and, IMO, should) and, in > theory at least, would be subject to appeal on the grounds that > there is no actual evidence of _community_ consensus. For this reason, in a working group near me, when we put out a WGLC we explicitly state that we are looking not only for objections, but for support. As a document shepherd, I will represent to the IESG that whatever document I send them is in one of a few states: 1) we got tired of the document and kicked it in their general direction 2) there is a smallish group within the working group that actually cares about this, and they agree 3) a large fraction of the working group is in support of this and of course, in any of those scenarios, there remains no pending issue that has not been pummeled to death, either resulting in consensus language or having a hold-out or two that is "in the rough". I, as a chair, am thinking deeply about that right now. We just finished a working group last call on a document that has had tepid support in the working group for a while, and in WGLC had exactly two comments, both of which expressed non-support. I don't think I can send it to the IESG in that state, because I can't make the indicated representation.