What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 people voted yes and 3 voted no, the three win? Id there’s a document that states these rules I’d be happy to dig into it. If there’s a rule we should have a vote. Who is entitled to vote? Like I’m new to this and so it’d be understandable if I’m not entitled to a vote. That said, what do the rules say?
> On Oct 23, 2023, at 9:07 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 4:03:36 AM EDT Francesca Palombini wrote: >> I have been asked by Murray to assist with a consensus evaluation on the >> discussion that has been going on for a while about the dmarcbis document >> and how to move forward. >> >> I have made an attempt to evaluate consensus on the topic, trying to look at >> it from a complete outsider’s point of view and trying not to let my >> personal opinion bias my assessment. This is a summary of that evaluation. >> It is based on several threads in the mailing list: [1], [2], [3] and >> recordings of the IETF 117 wg meeting [4]. I also tried to pay attention to >> chronology of comments, because some people have expressed different >> support for different proposals, in which case I consider the latest email >> I can find as the person’s latest opinion. Although that was mentioned, I >> believe there is no consensus to move the document status to Informational. >> I believe there is a rough consensus that a change needs to be made in the >> text to include stronger requirements admonishing operators against >> deploying DMARC in a way that causes disruption. The mails go in many >> directions, but the most contentious point I could identify is if there >> ought to be some normative MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT text. Many people have >> suggested text (thank you!). I believe the ones with more tractions are >> Scott’s MUST NOT proposal [2] and Barry’s SHOULD NOT proposal [3]. I >> believe most people who’d prefer just descriptive text have stated that >> they can live with the SHOULD NOT text, but they have stronger objections >> towards the MUST NOT text. There also a number of people who strongly >> believe MUST NOT is the way to go, but these people have not objected >> strongly to Barry’s latest proposed text in the mailing list (although they >> have made their preference clear during the meeting [4]). As a consequence, >> I believe there is a stronger (very rough) consensus for going with Barry’s >> SHOULD NOT text. I also believe there is consensus to add some >> non-normative explanatory text (be it in the interoperability or security >> consideration sections, or both) around it. I suggest the authors and the >> working group start with Berry’s text and fine-tune the details around it. >> In particular, as another AD that might have to ballot on this document, I >> suggest that you pay particular attention to the text around the SHOULD >> NOT, as also Murray suggested in [5]. I have often blocked documents with >> the following text: “If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at >> least one of: (1) A general description of the character of the exceptions >> and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to arise. Examples are fine >> but, except in plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists. (2) A >> statement about what should be done, or what the considerations are, if the >> "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement about why it is not a >> MUST.”. I appreciate everybody’s patience and constructive discussion. >> Francesca, ART AD >> [1]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z2hoBQLfacWdxALzx4urhKv-Z-Y/ >> [2]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wvuuggXnpT-8sMU49q3Xn9_BjHs/ >> [3]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/k6zxrKDepif26uWr0DeNdCK1xx4/ >> [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O28ShKGRAU >> [5]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ld-VObjtihm5uWd9liVzMouQ1sY/ > > I don't think this is consistent with the IETF's mandate to provide documents > which promote interoperability. I do not, however, plan to file an appeal > about it. > > Scott K > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
