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

... and I'm aware that we're talking about Brian like he was in a cave 
somewhere, but ignoring that for a moment ...

>>> 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?
>>
>> 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 understand this temptation ("Note that I haven't got a better answer 
..."), but it's a pretty important question.

> 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".

If this is the right answer, it would be good to designate "some person" 
pretty quickly. The alternative is that the choice of "some person", and 
community acceptance of /acquiescence in the team result, get discussed at 
the same time - if you don't like the team result and think "some person" 
likes the team result, you're likely to push back on both.

> 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).

This probably isn't worse than other ways we've applied the protocol 
development process to do non-protocol stuff, I guess.

> 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 :-(

I agree completely.

> 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.

Ack.

Spencer 

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