On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working group existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not have been chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to publish, therefore, it is assumed that the IETF has consensus to publish the document, because the IETF tasked the working group to go off and do its work, and the working group did it.
Therefore, silence during IETF last call is not interpreted as apathy, but rather a lack of objection to the completion of a process that the IETF chose to embark on and that the IETF has brought to completion, through the instrument of the working group that produced the document.
This is in fact how consensus is evaluated during IETF last call.
That's interesting - judging by the messages on this thread, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus on this...
If you think it should be done differently, write up a document and get IETF consensus on it, and we can change the procedure to whatever you think it should be. Maybe it would be an improvement.
... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any IETF comments?)