Re: Scenario C prerequisites (scott bradner) Wed, 22 September 2004 13:19 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04993; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CA78F-0006r0-Oj; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:26:04 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CA6wG-00086r-KK; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:13:40 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CA6ni-0006F4-5i for; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:04:50 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03652 for <>; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:04:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CA6uH-0006WM-C0 for; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:11:38 -0400
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 71BE4A72D9; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:04:18 -0400
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Subject: Re: Scenario C prerequisites
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9

Harald opines:
> > re: 1/ Considering the level of participation in this discussion on the
> > IETF list I do not see how one could assert that there was IETF
> > consensus without an explicit discussion at an IETF plenary - I do not
> > think that just issuing a last call (as envisioned by the Scenario C
> > document) would be seen by about anyone as an adequate involvement of
> > the community.
> I am not at all certain of that. In what way is 20 people arguing in front 
> of a thousand people in a room more "community involvement" than the same 
> 20 people arguing in front of a thousand people on a mailing list?

because this way you are sure that the thousand people at least know
what is going on and have a chance to express their view if they think
things are going wrong (in person or on the list during last call)

> Our tradition as IETF has been to declare that mailing list discussion is 
> the final arbiter of consensus. If we need to abandon that principle for 
> organizational matters, we leave ourselves in a situation where we can only 
> make significant decisions at 4-month intervals; that is a theoretically 
> defensible position, but sharply limits the scope of what we can hope to 
> accomplish in any given timeframe.

I trust we will not be reorganizing at this level all that often - I
think that adding or subtracting an area does not need a plenary session
but changing the legal basis of the endeavor is a rather important
step, one that should not be done on the basis of 10 people expressing
their opinion on a list.

i.e., I think some things are important enough to require the full
measure of due diligence - this level of reorganization is an example as
was the ravin discussion - waiting until the next face to face meeting
for a public discussion does not seem to be too big a issue when we 
are talking about a change that (historically) comes around every 
18 years.


Ietf mailing list