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

Keith Moore <> Wed, 26 October 2022 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3764EC152569 for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.605
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j3MN1q0f1wiR for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B15AC14F733 for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606625C00D6 for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:46:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:46:48 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1666820808; x=1666907208; bh=9 ZCwGwN5ZDV5J2gjetm67/fp/BgcfueM+XMGdAGd31k=; b=qRw1/aX9xrjBDHAyG AT6fIGGHs1ZJ9YNtQhY0cvCAzdATw6p4Fatw6ARo4rGuIXgEAo3LlR5BdsnU6t17 Hrj3KuaiztRAU08746Lgl6Xt5nZ4AvQxxOkU5NXeTzgFEQGB74XegIUfgQBjylyK ArY8oX3Jb0wlwUsmYJ8JdGzdP70QjJ8/AXhR3iO6Emnz1C61S1ibnwkratsDkejY QBSU/IwZn5je/RvtGxSx9ERjBmYTHKm+kV4/gbYZnsINXj91CtEmSbVs7aRtThTm n81kF8nAtjlDYltFzZjjpKBEuZCKUujIgYDrkudxqu6Vmnz7LiRdqywsBmLJZb5/ bDVtA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:yKpZY5AUF3NSI0bn0MZW0GpmSZCxdzqFgvGbLAhaTV9AVN6Hz3pa6A> <xme:yKpZY3g9A9pc-hQ3fNNFf1xmplD42sq0LUYFup3cTgDCGXhZJTYeR2LndkK589VdJ QlnewnbdE48jA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:yKpZY0lUm24vAftB28eRNJJTEBNfn7EJmd2WsKP08zviDK8nC6BSvI27Rom8b6H7gm4w57G3NZdfGtpGuOhZj5qQRmaeLI0EBSW0-a32YcmlTADKNWakdw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvgedrtdefgddtudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvfhfhjggtgfesthekre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfedtvdelieejve ekjefhueduheeviefhjeefvdfgudfhfffhudduudefgefgteevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkh dqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:yKpZYzzlC-zMd60irUjSa4CO2ifepN4pVB8TaLLu1Kushwakw72q7Q> <xmx:yKpZY-RGmMgRryT81A_dsl9EKIJsiYPoBu_beBQgU11LfFJZNeJ8Dw> <xmx:yKpZY2ajncvnrlHG8NwOQp74vUCxe1VOxoabtzLAzjUlInLsGOTlaQ> <xmx:yKpZY1eB3yCLw8WHGetx5iSZK0-v15Z-sW6Y4hB8dfUgYri0eI5nXQ>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:46:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:46:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Content-Language: en-US
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Consensus call (was: Other stuff)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:46:58 -0000

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.)