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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On mandag, januar 16, 2006 16:00:58 +0200 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> 
> wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> Formally, I think we either need to have formal consent or a revolution.... 
> remember that at the time of Kobe, the IAB formally accepted the output of 
> the POISED process, so we have a tradition of being formally correct when we 
> revolutionize....
>
> If the next steps are the right ones, IESG consent will be obtainable, I 
> think; some procedures for getting it are messier than others.

Indeed, I don't think this is a major problem.  In my opinion, what's 
more important would be that IAOC, IESG, IAB etc. know that they 
will be asked to COMMENT, but not DISCUSS.

I believe this may have a positive impact on the amount of time spent 
obtaining consensus and/or consent.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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