[Mod-discuss] Broad consensus

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell writes:
> On 29/08/2025 20:40, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Is it so hard to understand how error-prone this process is?
> That IMO is a fair point.
  [ ... ]
> I hope the AD and IESG try do something about that, e.g. to
> include a plenary presentation/discussion on this topic before
> the end of IETF LC.

Let me point out a very easy way to see why that's inadequate:

    * https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/
      includes the following statement: "IETF activities are conducted
      with extreme transparency, in public forums. Decision-making
      requires achieving broad consensus via these public processes."

    * IETF Last Call is a broad process, but not a consensus process.
      Decisions are made by a small group, IESG. Last Call is just
      inviting everyone to provide input to IESG; it isn't requiring
      decisions to achieve IETF-wide consensus.

    * The only consensus process is within the WG. But the MODPOD WG is
      tiny, so even a _unanimous_ decision within the WG wouldn't be
      "broad consensus".

I conclude that the chairs are obliged to reach out to broaden the WG
membership before allowing any WG decisions.

I imagine that IETF-wide email from the chairs as follows would help
broaden membership: "The MODPOD charter says, in short, that MODPOD's
goal is to resolve inconsistencies in current procedures. However,
MODPOD's current draft actually creates new censorship powers, such as
adding five new IETF-wide censors, removing RFC 3934's requirement of
prior warnings, and adding a new list of content-based categories of
material that the censors are authorized to selectively ban. We know
censorship can be controversial. As chairs, we would like to broaden WG
participation to make sure that there is a balance of interests before
any WG decisions are made."

---D. J. Bernstein