Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[todd glassey]

So then Steve - if the Chair can declare as to what
Consensus means then what is the point of a WG - The
Chair could take their own vote as a co and pass it...
Ridiculous and extreme but still possible under today's
rules. The issue specifically is

    1)    What is a consensus and who determines it for
each "vote"...

    2)    How is a consensus documented and what about
the capturing of dissenting opinions from the
Consensus -

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at research.att.com>
To: <avri at acm.org>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to
Informational RFC


> In message
<5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112 at acm.org>,
avri at acm.org writes:
> >
> >On tisdag, jan 6, 2004, at 10:26 Asia/Seoul, Keith
Moore wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> To the group: Apart from this one message from
John, and a "ship it"
> >>> message from Brian, I have seen no further Last
Call comments to the
> >>> IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with
your perceptions, or
> >>> did my search of my mailboxes miss something?
> >>
> >> I submitted comments on November 20; they are in
the list archives at
> >>
> >>
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-
> >> November/003225.html
> >>
> >> since these appear to have been ignored by the WG
management, (i.e.
> >> the chairs declared "rough consensus" without even
responding to these
> >> comments), I believe IESG should consider them as
comments for its
> >> Last Call.
> >
> >
> >While we did call rough consensus despite your
comments, and those of
> >Todd Glassey and Alex Conta,  we did not ignore your
comments and they
> >were included in the report on the rough consensus:
> >
>
>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-stateme
nt/2003-December/
> >003245.html
>
> >to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,:
> >
>
>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-stateme
nt/2003-December/
> >003247.html
> >
> >The discussion went on for a little bit after that,
without, as far as
> >I can tell, any support for your position.  I do,
however, support your
> >forwarding of your unresolved comments to the IESG
during the IETF last
> >call.
>
>
> Right.  Note that 2418 explicitly notes that rough
consensus is not the
> same as unanmity -- chairs are perfectly free to
declare consensus even
> if there are some objections to a document.
>
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>