On 9/8/2015 9:19 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > My overall conclusion is that the last call has established that > there is rough consensus for this status change and I've put this > on the IESG telechat for Sept 17th so the rest of the IESG can > evaluate that. ... > Lastly, I do recognise that the consensus for at least the > in-place part of the status change is rough, so I've called > that out to the IESG via Robert's summary and Dave's response. [2] 1. Citing concerns is not the same as dealing with them. My note pointed out basic problems with Robert's summary. It was meant as an invitation to /repair/ it's deficiency's, rather than merely note that someone had some concerns. 2. An essential contribution of RFC 7282 is to emphasize the importance of attending to 'minority' concerns. On the current topic, they have not been attended to, although the concerns expressed have been fundamental to the role and handling of the document. 3. There is a continuing pattern of citing SAAG as if its discussions equate to that of a working group, such as noting "rough consensus" within that group. Advisory group discussions, such as by SAAG, can be quite helpful. /But they are not chartered working groups, with advertised agendas and deliverables./ As I noted, SAAG's composition and conduct are fundamentally inappropriate to cite for a standards-oriented decision. Worse, the citation of rough consensus on SAAG has no obvious basis from the mailing list record. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net