On 9/28/10 12:25 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > (Please take a break from the other threads and read this with an open > mind. I have tried to make this both informative and balanced.) > > --- IETF Process > > For those unfamiliar with the IETF process, we operate using rough > consensus. This means most people agree and no one strongly objects. If > someone strongly objects, it takes a very unified group to ignore that > person, with full documentation of why the group chose to do so. That > person can raise the issue again during working group last call, area > director review, and IETF last call - each has the potential to trigger > another round of discussions with a wider audience. That person can also > appeal the working group decision before it is approved as an RFC.
To clarify, "rough consensus" does not mean "unanimity" and it does not mean "one vocal person can launch their own personal DoS against the WG". The chairs (and if necessary the sponsoring AD) do have tools at their disposal for declaring consensus. That said, I think your proposal is a reasonable compromise for how to move this WG forward. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
