Re: [Last-Call] Consensus call (was: Other stuff)

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Thu, 27 October 2022 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8D4C1522C6 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=episteme.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TA3wNu67O1k7 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from helm.helm.episteme.net (helm.helm.episteme.net [209.51.32.195]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 508D9C1522B2 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=episteme.net; s=mail; t=1666830056; bh=C/g/WQ1AwZjgzaTpit2t6RJw3G03CkWzXVmXqhYupZg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=GQQqHwqGNXW+gf9JIlspsIfSjd1moNmjovgLrNjKO1n1Oqi8R12/Hn3xd2KA9QFc0 GTd3VeS6+q/lo1B/0ScgZiTEhUp4sQM2/zS+CrjUKPsHuzvqjdUJYMyWb+R+mXq0n9 3UkSI8dzBzC1sJ8QNup2PhzYeBA/kunGpU52TLyI=
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:20:54 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5923)
Message-ID: <DD082274-37FE-456E-BF5C-4946052FDDBB@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <a0a53dde-71ee-6e5d-a8a2-2de54c5c8bc2@network-heretics.com>
References: <1659579803.1584473.1666713109917@email.ionos.com> <5C89E6B9-02CC-4318-A6B3-BCEC64B3A8E1@nohats.ca> <596056806.1631161.1666718953582@email.ionos.com> <CAKM0pYOfJeUpXLQoJw+qCL6eoMPRfcdjCqHxrN5=eHc8fqiktQ@mail.gmail.com> <1D882122-CBA8-4F3E-88C7-27AD6C9A892C@episteme.net> <a0a53dde-71ee-6e5d-a8a2-2de54c5c8bc2@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/NFKodlzrVcIWgM6CJvzGe4M3CMk>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Consensus call (was: Other stuff)
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:21:02 -0000

On 26 Oct 2022, at 16:46, Keith Moore wrote:

> On 10/26/22 16:29, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>> Second, determining (rough) consensus is not our call to make. It's 
>> the IESG's in the case of IETF-wide Last Calls. Pointing out that a 
>> particular view has not been taken into account in the discussion 
>> seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I don't think claiming that 
>> there is or isn't rough consensus is particularly useful or 
>> appropriate (anymore than saying, "Pete's point definitely beats 
>> Stu's point" is).
>
> I almost agree, except for two things:
>
> (1) A volunteer organization is ultimately responsible to its 
> volunteers, and it's vital that we keep our facilitators honest. When 
> a WG chair, or for that matter IESG, declares consensus and there's 
> clearly not a consensus (or vice versa) the first line of defense from 
> the community is to point out that they've made a dubious call.   
> Sometimes the chair will reconsider their decision in light of such 
> feedback, which is a lot less overhead and less stress than an appeal.
>
> (2) In this case, however, private responses to iesg@ are explicitly 
> permitted.   So in this case there's no way that anyone but IESG can 
> be expected to take into account the full spectrum of responses when 
> determining consensus.
>
> (In the event of an appeal on the consensus call, presumably IAB can 
> request to see all of those messages, and IAB's liason to IESG will 
> presumably be able to provide them.)

Completely agree; I actually started to add a paragraph about the appeal 
thing (both the informal, "Hey chair, I think you might have blown it" 
and the formal sort), but left it out because I didn't want to belabor 
the point. But absolutely, that is the appropriate time to question a 
consensus caller if they have not sufficiently explained their 
determination.

Note that all IESG Last Call announcements explicitly permit 
("exceptionally", they say) private comments to be sent to the IESG. If 
a determination is based in part on those comments (for any Last Call), 
and the determination would be "surprising" to the community, I would 
expect the content of such comments to be explicitly noted in the IESG's 
decision.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best