Re: [nfsv4] rough consensus

[Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:11:26PM -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I concur on that fundamental issue - IETF is absolutely supposed to
> work in the former fashion (WG as partner in the process).  I had read
> Spencer's message as strongly discouraging consensus calls by those
> who are not WG chairs, which (as a WG chair myself) I believe is
> appropriate.

+1 David Black's comments.

I believe it is appropriate for a participant to request a consensus
call.  I believe it's also appropriate for a participant to voice their
opinion as to what the consensus is.  Statements such as "<WG chair
name>, I believe you'll agree with me that there is consensus on this
question" are fair enough, though of course such statements are not
authoritative, and the chair may well disagree with them.

Even statements such as "there is rough consensus for X" from non-chairs
are allowable -- they just aren't authoritative, and therefore not
useful.  It's much better to qualify such statements accordingly, and
it's even better to request a formal determination of consensus.

The relevant I-D's authors would do well to submit a new version, then
request whatever procedure is appropriate.  E.g., if it's not a work
item and the authors wish it were, then ask for a consensus call
regarding that, or, if the authors think the I-D is ready, they could
ask for a WG Last Call, and so on.

As far as I can see, there's nothing to see here.

Cheers,

Nico
--