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