>>>>> "John" == John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scott O Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>> * The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the >>>> technical approach or document. There are cases where >>>> individual working groups or areas have forged rough >>>> consensus around a technical approach which does not garner >>>> IETF consensus. An AD may DISCUSS a document where she or he >>>> believes this to be the case. While the Area Director should >>>> describe the technical area where consensus is flawed, the >>>> focus of the DISCUSS and its resolution should be on how to >>>> forge a cross-IETF consensus. >> what actual evidence must an AD present to indicate that the >> assertion of non-consensus is anywhere but in the one AD's >> mind? >> >> None. But the AD must be willing to propose a procedure that >> the rest of the IESG can go along with to determine whether >> there is in fact a lack of consensus or wether the AD is wrong. >> This style of discuss is much more of a "Hold on here, let's >> work together to check consensus," than a "I'm blocking this >> document for ever." John> This is venturing into dangerous territory. The best John> expertise on the technical issues involved _should_ be in John> the WG that produced the document. Expecting to find John> _better_ expertise within the IESG seems less than John> rational... For this type of discuss, the IESG is not making a technical judgment, but rather a judgment of consensus and process. And expecting the IESG to understand our process and be able to execute it is hopefully a rational judgment. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf