I think Pete is correct, in that the way we do last calls
tends to look like voting, which in turn suggests to participants
that we're voting. "Are there any objections to <whatever>?"
is, I think, the real question at hand, although I can see where
that could tend to attract cranks and chronic kvetches. Perhaps
something along the lines of "Does anybody have reasons this
document should not progress towards publication?" might do.
So, back in the days when we were talking about the move from a 3-stage process to a 2-stage process, I wrote draft-hardie-advance-mechanics. That described our then-extent process this way:
In practice, IETF document processing has evolved to a model which can be described as "objection based processing". A document put forward by an author team advances from the relevant working group to IETF consideration after all objections from within the working group have been considered. The IETF Last Call is, in practice, a way for the larger community to object to a document or elements within it. IESG document processing is, fundamentally, a process by which a sponsor resolves any objections raised by other area directors; though the term used is "discuss" and some delegation occurs (to document shepherds or review teams), the basic model is clear.
I don't think that true consensus is achieved by the lack of objection, but the community
seems to have accepted it as "rough consensus".
Could we do better? Absolutely. We could, for example, formalize the third-party reviews
by other areas such that a demonstration that proposals were acceptable in a broader Internet
context was fundamental (either at charter time, at working group draft acceptance time,
at proposed publication, periodically for advancement, or at all of the above). That would
get voices known to have analysed it heard, and give us a lot more confidence that the
proposal wasn't narrow in its examination of the impact of its work.
But this is a volunteer organization, and the practical truth is that we don't have the volunteer
energy to do that or the funds to pay for it (or trust in anyone we'd pay, as another issue).
So, bluntly, we should take what we get and use it as we can. If Pete can't figure out what
to make of a +1 by a 5 term IESG member and sitting IAB Chair, then he'll have to evaluate
the document without that input. He'll have to evaluate it on its merits anyway, so it's
no big deal. But anything that discourages review, however, cursory, is not really a good
thing. Perhaps a note to the reviewer like:
"Thanks for taking the time. It's good to know I can reach out to you for more data, should
I be on the fence on this one".
(I'm thinking on heavy stock Crane paper, maybe in a cream, nicely lettered. Or, you know, as
a jotted email or IM.)
Even sent to a stranger, that would look nice and remind people that we're not voting.
Just some thoughts on the topic,
Ted