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

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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.

It just needs to be written in a way that means that reasonably
objective statements like "we don't have enough money for this" or "this will
increase the IESG workload by about 33%" are in effect blocking comments.
I though "consent" captured that quite well.

     Brian

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