Re: [Rfced-future] **Consensus check on part of Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body open to all?**

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 27 November 2020 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25B43A047D; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:26:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jtE5CKe-J7uL; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42963A07DE; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ARGQkHx003034; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:46 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8617A22056; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79BBC22052; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.111]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ARGQjvY016044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:46 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Eliot Lear' <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, rfced-future@iab.org
References: <5EE071CB-30CA-474F-BFA5-45129FFFFCBA@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5EE071CB-30CA-474F-BFA5-45129FFFFCBA@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:44 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <04e101d6c4da$18dadec0$4a909c40$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGx5aRnig5hkp6VFi94dcUuyC7i4qol5vBw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.111
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25816.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.235-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.235-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25816.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.235500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: HXSqh3WYKfu9GVQT/CmkaCEyJ8xFEVolkW0zU11KKK3aOIP2b6ZfX9Ei m4gTRv0SAPHKes87ZbBBS1PQQ1i1NZ2DGfbmRbvP+ACG5oWJ7tJ4Xox68xVlQJCMofw0mbSu58S ju1ep5ml2mzSFmhL2Ygjr4u3LUP1sbBfEWzUJPFdIcJTn2HkqsRpxmKWTfsQIYANrKD2dIzoRZc CYVXElTp0rIOpoHYpOmfHUPwJ5HXNoWWTS0CIqzt83p9W/k4fKwuIWIvQEbW6bKItl61J/yY3BZ j4qY5QbDMq3z/Y/gtV5zdAzex5xZrCuwQ6KM3KeiKzwUUQC5KhlPtYC/i3Xx/4DQmHlw+4RL+Kq 22yZJmuUTGVAhB5EbQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/oNT5TPLNKYZI4pFcxYEWVm5f1S8>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] **Consensus check on part of Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body open to all?**
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:52 -0000

Thanks Eliot,

I can agree with all of that.

Hiding behind the third bullet is the question about how the strategic body makes decisions: by votes of the body, by consensus of the body, by consensus of all those who engage.

And that leads to a question non the second bullet as to whether the RFCs need any form of consensus (e.g., IETF consensus on the IETF stream, IAB consensus on the IAB stream) or are publications of record by the strategic body.

Ciao,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <rfced-future-bounces@iab.org> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 27 November 2020 15:40
To: rfced-future@iab.org
Subject: [Rfced-future] **Consensus check on part of Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body open to all?**

Please let us know in within the next three weeks if you disagree with any of the following:

• The chairs think that everybody agrees that there is some strategic body

• The chairs think that strategic decisions get documented in RFCs

• The chairs think that there is consensus that the strategic body is open to all to engage openly, and that meetings should be open, minuted, agendas posted.  This is not to say that there is consensus about how the strategic body is composed.

These points obviously do not close Issue 13.