Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28/11/2014 05:51, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Le 2014-11-27 à 03:57, Richard Hill <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>> I note that section 3 of RFC 7282 states:
>>
>> "The chair of a working group who is about to find that there is only rough
>> consensus is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
>> taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
>> ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the outcome
>> does not constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements of the
>> work. ... A valid justification needs to me [sic] made."
>>
>> Therefore, I would request that the co-chairs provide a justification for
>> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.
> 
> While the shepherd writeup is not to justify, the writeup that was recently submitted summarize it.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/

Speaking as a process pedant, I would like to point out that
RFC 7282 is Informational, so that use of "needs" is not actually
a normative requirement of the standards process.

Also, the text Richard elided ends thus:

"...the chair must use their judgement in these cases.  What can't happen
   is that the chair bases their decision solely on hearing a large
   number of voices simply saying, "The objection isn't valid."  That
   would simply be to take a vote.  A valid justification needs to [be]
   made."

Now, that passive tense is a bit confusing, but to my eyes it refers
to the fact that the chair(s) should make a judgement about validity rather
than counting votes. Anyway, I believe that the paragraph in the writeup
that starts "There was a broad suggestion..." does justify the chairs'
judgement.

   Brian