Sam Hartman wrote: > > RJ Atkinson <rja.li...@gmail.com> writes: > > > RJ> I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would > RJ> reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce > RJ> IETF and WG consensus about this specification. > > Ran, I just checked, and you don't seem to be a 6man chair. We > generally ask chairs, not involved participants to judge WG consensus > and ADs to judge IETF consensus. > > So, I think what you're saying boils down to you disagree with Eliot > because you believe his comments would reduce clarity. You believe > others within the WG and outside the WG are likely to agree with you. > That's all fine and is valuable to contribute. > > However, I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion > when participants try to call consensus. > Thanks for considering my input.
This applies not only to individuals alleging "consensus", but in just the same way to WG chairs, ADs and the IESG to allege "consensus" for a change without performing a consensus call that properly lists options and their tradeoffs. The only exception is, that IETF leadership (WG chairs, AD, IESG) could assert their leadership privilege to make a specific choice. In this case, however, they should label it as such (a leadership decision). For resolving issues that individuals have with leadership decisions, there is the appeals process. -Martin -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
