Re: [Pesci-discuss] principles for decision-making

>>>>> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> writes:

    Jari> I'm also in for "rough consensus" (sometimes we try to make
    Jari> it too smooth) as well as "running code" (we need more of
    Jari> that).

    Jari> However, I'd like to make an observation that there may be
    Jari> different decision processes depending on the type of
    Jari> decision involved. I believe very much that on our basic
    Jari> technical work RCRC should apply. But we already apply
    Jari> different principles in different parts of the
    Jari> organization. For instance, nomcom has its special
    Jari> procedures. IESG has its special procedures -- not sure how
    Jari> I should classify them, would "absolute consensus" or
    Jari> "voting" describe the final IESG review model better than
    Jari> RCRC? And I'm fine with having these specific processes. 

I think the IESG actually follows RC RC although we've defined an
explicit measure of what rough is for documents at least.  Rough is
two ADs left out on an override vote.

I do agree that special processes for some things such as process
change may be appropriate.  I think the community would need to agree
to these processes.  I also think that ultimately the community needs
to at least have a consensus to consent to a process change.  We might
decide that community level line item editing of process changes is
something that doesn't work, but at least a community consensus call
at the end seems important.

--Sam

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