> Le 2015-02-17 à 18:07, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Hi. > > > The message below sounds like it perports to be a judgment of consensus I’m sorry. I probably need to revise the wording I used in the summary. I guess you are probably referring to the first item (A) in my summary. Obviously, I did not want to claim any concensus, it is the AD and IESG to declare it. And this is what is planned (IESG/AD to judge concensus). Really sorry, I should have been careful about how I wrote it. Marc. > and a summary of last call comments ffor a draft being published as IETF > stream as a standards action. > This document is authored by the IAB. > > Mark Blanchet, the author of this message is an IAB member. > > I have a huge process concern with this. I'd expect that the person > judging consensus for an IETF last call on a standards action would be a > member of the IESG, and especially not one of the authors of the draft, > which for an IAB document should include the entire IAB. > >> From time to time the IESG might delegate that role to a document > shepherd who is not a member of the IESG. I'd expect that the IESG > member would still ultimately judge consensus, but I can see a shepherd > writing up an initial message. I think such a delegation to an IAB > member for an IAB document is entirely inappropriate. > > I'm very uncomfortable with the apparent process here and believe that > that to avoid doubt a member of the IESG needs to step in and make their > own independent assessment of the last call comments. > If my understanding is correct and we've already misstepped here, I > think delegation would be inappropriate in this instance. > > --Sam