Watson Ladd writes: > Of course if the ADs and IESG had actually wanted to address the > substantive issues they could have: they've decided to kick this matter > around for months inventing procedural steps out of whole cloth to avoid > settling the question of what rough consensus to adopt a draft means. [ ... ] > Does rough consensus to adopt a draft mean only a critical mass of > participants want to work on it, in the face of considerable > opposition that this isn't the direction to go?
Yes, this is the heart of the matter. There are also the underlying content points saying _why_ non-hybrids are problematic, but when one gets down to brass tacks the question is whether a document can be non-consensually rammed through the IETF process. ---D. J. Bernstein P.S. For readers bumping into this message who haven't seen the context: Please see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html to understand what's actually going on here. ===== NOTICES REGARDING IETF ===== It has come to my attention that IETF LLC believes that anyone filing a comment, objection, or appeal is engaging in a copyright giveaway by default, for example allowing IETF LLC to feed that material into AI systems for manipulation. Specifically, IETF LLC views any such material as a "Contribution", and believes that WG chairs, IESG, and other IETF LLC agents are free to modify the material "unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution (in the form specified by the Legend Instructions)". I am hereby explicitly disallowing such modifications. Regarding "form", my understanding is that "Legend Instructions" currently refers to the portion of https://web.archive.org/web/20250306221446/https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf saying that the situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications nor to allow publication as an RFC" must be expressed in the following form: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft". That expression hereby applies to this message. I'm fine with redistribution of copies of this message. There are no confidentiality restrictions on this message. The issue here is with modifications, not with dissemination. For other people concerned about what IETF LLC is doing: Feel free to copy these notices into your own messages. If you're preparing text for an IETF standard, it's legitimate for IETF LLC to insist on being allowed to modify the text; but if you're just filing comments then there's no reason for this. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
