Perceived consensus on Problem Doc

[Avri Doria]

On onsdag, dec 3, 2003, at 23:56 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:

>
> On Dec 3, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on 
>> this document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related 
>> to those brought up in the 1st Last Call  brought up that warrant 
>> going though another editing cycle on this document.  We believe that 
>> at this time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to 
>> the General Area AD for IESG consideration.
>
> Well, I believe you're wrong about that, and I specifically object to 
> the chairs' moving this document forward without due consideration of 
> Last Call comments.

We had two last calls and dealt with the problems raised during the 
first last call with extensive discussions and changes to the document. 
The second last call was to review changes made because of the first 
last call.

When this WG started one of the first issues we reached rough consensus 
on was that in a document like this, or the process doc for that 
matter, we would never be able to get full consensus and would never be 
able to capture all of the problems people saw or would never be able 
to eliminate mention of perceived problems that someone did not see.  
In other words, the WG agreed at that time that rough consensus would 
be the best we would achieve.  We could cycle this document forever in 
a vain attempt to get full consensus as it does contain compromise, and 
compromise never goes down easily.

>
> As it seems a bit ridiculous to appeal to IESG an action to send a 
> document to IESG that IESG probably feels it can't really object to 
> (since it criticizes IESG), I'm somewhat at a loss as to what to do 
> next, but I believe this action is highly inappropriate, and it calls 
> this entire WG's output into doubt.
>

I disagree with three points here.

- The document goes to great pains to differentiate between criticism 
of the IESG membership and the IESG process.  While there is certainly 
criticism of IESG process, I feel the document is rather scrupulous in 
not criticizing the IESG members.

- From what I know of the IESG and its members, I have no doubt that if 
they find something seriously wrong with the document or if in the IETF 
Last Call (which the room recommended in Minneapolis even though this 
was an Informational document) some major lack of consensus on the part 
of the IETF body politic is discovered, they will do their duty and 
send it back with one or more DISCUSS issues.  In other words, I do 
trust that they will not be cowed by any perception some may have that 
this document criticizes them.

- In any tehcno-political document, and the output of this WG, in my 
opinion, falls into this category, there is always doubt on at least 
someone's part.   Given the review this document has gotten from the WG 
and will get from the IESG and the community at large I think that when 
it is published, assuming the IESG decides to do so, it will reflect 
the rough consensus of the IETF community and will reflect well on this 
WG.

a.