Declarers of consensus (Re: [Pesci-discuss] My Notes)

--On onsdag, oktober 19, 2005 18:47:49 -0400 Scott W Brim 
<swb@employees.org> wrote:

>> 6.1.  Change Process Proposal
>>
>>
>> SD: It bothers me that this document handwaves approval of process
>> change ("the IESG (and ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that
>> consensus and approve it") - who actually DECLARES the consensus that
>> the IESG and ISOC BoT then respect? Note that I haven't got a better
>> answer, but the default now looks like "Brian declares consensus (or
>> lack thereof) based on [fill in the blank here], and if no one
>> successfully appeals to IAB/ISOC BoT, we know where we're going" - and
>> if this isn't the default, what is?
>>
>>   The teams should function with an open discussion list, in the same
>>   way that the PESCI committee has done.  The result of the committee
>>   should be tested against the IETF consensus in the normal fashion; we
>>   believe that if there is clear IETF consensus that the proposal makes
>>   sense, the IESG (and the ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that
>>   consensus and approve of it.
>
> I'm stepping back from this one because I'm out of time.  I look
> forward to others' opinions.

PESCI stepped back from this one too.......

I think the answer's likely to be "the team discusses its result openly in 
the IETF, using process X, and some person designated by the IETF chair 
declares that he has concluded that the IETF has consensus".

This follows a model of the IETF as "WG", and the team analogous to the 
"design team". Still unclear whether the person declaring IETF consensus 
has to be part of the team developing the proposal or not (practice for 
design teams varies).

That declaration of consensus would then be evaluated by the bodies having 
to approve the document (including the IESG and the ISOC BoT), and my hope 
is that it's going to be "pretty obvious" - because the spectacle of trying 
for process change based on a declaration of consensus that can be 
questioned to death in detail may cause us all to prefer the 51% 
dictatorship of voting :-(

Of course, one danger is that the only changes we're able to make is the 
obvious ones..... but that seems a danger in all efforts to change the IETF.

                       Harald

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