Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

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

 



Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> 
>     RJ> I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would
>     RJ> reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce
>     RJ> IETF and WG consensus about this specification.
> 
> Ran,  I just checked, and you don't seem to be a 6man chair. We
> generally ask chairs, not involved participants to judge WG consensus
> and ADs to judge IETF consensus.
> 
> So, I think  what you're saying boils down to you disagree with Eliot
> because you believe his comments would reduce clarity. You believe
> others within the WG and outside the WG are likely to agree with you.
> That's all fine and is valuable to contribute.
> 
> However, I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion
> when participants try to call consensus. 
> Thanks for considering my input.


This applies not only to individuals alleging "consensus", but in just
the same way to WG chairs, ADs and the IESG to allege "consensus" for
a change without performing a consensus call that properly lists
options and their tradeoffs.

The only exception is, that IETF leadership (WG chairs, AD, IESG)
could assert their leadership privilege to make a specific choice.
In this case, however, they should label it as such (a leadership
decision).  For resolving issues that individuals have with
leadership decisions, there is the appeals process.


-Martin




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