Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"?

Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> Tue, 03 November 2009 00:37 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=AZnuPdLkTFrZLF+IJUbUo3WgkhXDKyzPVzJZy7/9McrSzN20PDbp4wmNc3kFgkcvH7 vtiMF8rqlhB6X9LQ16Two3xntKwubKivfuTnprdycAkhWJhvlCgW11aoUJO1fmzk2xAy ZpLlW+RepNMvqBnLcfRbfujaXn/vQ+p8P9XMk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910310127390.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
References: <4AE7F0AE.1000102@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910280740540.25608@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AE7FFC4.8050405@gmx.de> <4AE806AA.60901@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910280938560.25608@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AE86513.4060600@ericsson.com> <3a880e2c0910281301j5d1e4cdclfe2391b28eadda0e@mail.gmail.com> <4AE8CA69.2040105@webtide.com> <44abafb90910281604o2a73b490l6b1ae5ca1fba37ba@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910310127390.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:15 -0800
Message-ID: <ca722a9e0911021638p6d7ce1e0r8e2983756234141f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c59a5fb910d404776cb541"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"?
Precedence: list

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> I must admit to being more interested in technical soundness than
> consensus. However, if we are to base things on consensus, then we need an
> objective definition of consensus, so that it can be determined when we do
> or do not have consensus. Is there such a definition?
>
>
It's simpler for WG documents, where the WG chair is responsible for
determining WG consensus.  Unless it turns out that there's an opposite
consensus outside the WG, the WG consensus is generally not overturned by
individual feedback in Last Call when IETF consensus is confirmed.

For individual proposals, it's tougher to determine consensus but the AD
responsible for sponsoring the document is responsible for judging consensus
based on all the feedback she's aware of.

That's objective only in the sense that somebody is objectively defined to
make the subjective call, but that's the heart of the matter.

It helps our transparency to make consensus calls explicit, if there are
individual issues that can be teased out for such a call -- particularly if
people can vote not only for or against, but also for "dealbreaker" and "not
a dealbreaker".

Lisa

Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Julian Reschke
[hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Julian Reschke
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Ian Hickson
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Salvatore Loreto
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Ian Hickson
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Julian Reschke
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Salvatore Loreto
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Martin Tyler
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Julian Reschke
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Ian Hickson
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Mike Dierken
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Ian Hickson
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Jamie Lokier
Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"? Lisa Dusseault