On 3/21/19 12:13 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
I have been thinking about this some more, and the right approach is
to take the problems one at a time, each on their own merits as we
usually do. That has historically been the most successful approach
for us.
There is no recipe approach to these decisions, we have to build
community consensus every time using the best knowledge we have and it
is the job of the various leadership level to drive that process.
- Stewart
I'm starting to think that the draft would be better if it did not cite
specific examples of decisions made to favor the interests of users.
There's a tendency for people to consider the examples as more
authoritative than the idea behind them.
But when a participant believes that a proposal favors the interests of
other parties over those of (ordinary, human) Internet users, this
should be considered a legitimate reason for objecting to the proposal.
When determining whether or not there is rough consensus on a
proposal, objections that the proposal harms the interests of ordinary
users need to be taken seriously, and evaluated on the basis of whether
the argument seems credible, rather than dismissed as irrelevant. This
should apply whenever such objections are raised: within a WG, or during
IETF-wide Last Call, or on appeal. And strong arguments that an
existing standard harms ordinary users could be justification for
revising the standard, deprecating it, or changing its status.
Keith
