Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <000201c3d479$9934ede0$010aff0a at tsg>, "todd glassey" writes:
>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"...

The chair determines it; abuses of that power can be and have been 
appealed.  Voting -- as you're repeatedly proposed, with essentially no 
support -- would require many other massive changes to the IETF 
structure, such as formal membership.  But you know all that, because 
you've raised the issue repeatedly and received the same answers.  
>
>    2)    How is a consensus documented and what about
>the capturing of dissenting opinions from the
>Consensus -

The working group mailing list archive.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb