Re: [Pesci-discuss] [Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pesci-initial-considerations-01.txt]

It seems to me that P3 already covers taking advice from the IESG.

Further P2 requires rough consensus of the IETF. It seems unlikely to me
that if the IESG objected this would not influence the formation of rough
consensus because they would state their opinions in a public forum and
their opinions would carry weight appropriate to their positions. If, in
Brian's example, the effect of a change was considerable (30% increase in
IESG time, massive cost, etc.) I would expect to see this pointed out by
the IESG during the discussion phase with the effect that either the
proposal was modified or the rough consensus was not achieved.

This, IMHO, is how the IETF rough consensus process is supposed to work.
Thus, while we would clearly want to have buy-in from the IESG and other
bodies, it is relatively unlikely that we would have gotten to the stage
of needing buy-in unless:
- there was already IESG support
- there was massive IETF support
- the difference in opinion was minor and on some small point

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] [Fwd:I-D
ACTION:draft-davies-pesci-initial-considerations-01.txt]

> Pekka,
>
> >> From Principles, P4 is indeed a tricky one.  I'd say that "Formal
> >
> > consent from [current leadership]" is too strong wording.  I'd say
that
> > they must be allowed to comment on the proposal.  Whether they could
> > consent to it or not is IMHO irrelevant.  The whole point is that if
> > there would be IETF consensus for making the choice, I'm not sure
> > whether it's OK that any of {IESG,IAB,IAOC} alone should be able to
> > block the process.  (I'd be OK if some form of consent was needed from
a
> > majority of the bodies.)
>
> Yes, this is certainly a tricky point. You can imagine the mess if a
> change was agreed by a new process that the IESG decided was completely
> unworkable, or that would cost $500,000 extra in secretariat work. But
note,
> this does not say *approval* by [current leadership]. It says consent.
> We could define the rules for consent in a different way from the normal
> rules for approval of technical documents (e.g. a simple majority vote,
> with nothing like a Discuss option).
>
>      Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pesci-discuss mailing list
> Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
>
>

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss