Re: "Fragile" Consensus

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Carl,

Sigh.  (the low-energy version of flame-on...)

As one of those who stood at the plenary and spoke in support of the
proposal, I nonetheless need to take exception to your note of 
frustration about the detailed "input" you are getting on the Poised 
compromise.

First of all, an IETF meeting represents an important polling event,
but it never constitutes all of the IETF, so its results must not
be taken as definitive.  I don't expect outright reversals of decisions,
but the rest of the community _must_ be given its day.

Second, the IETF plenary event served the purpose of generating
a core of rough consensus, and I believe that nooddling the details,
then, was an inappropriate exercise.

But noodling is what we do and it's important that we go through the
exercise of looking at and challenging details.  

Truth be told, I don't expect massive changes, since the proposal
looked pretty tight and thorough, but folks need the opportunity
of working through things and discussing them, themselves.

Have some patience, Carl.  Use the whip and chair when things get
truly out of hand or go on too long, but a strict "take it or
leave it" attitude simply isn't the IETF style.

Dave