On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gond...@gondrom.org> wrote: >> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good >> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the >> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay >> and getting input from the community. > This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two > weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason. I think > there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever > represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call. > > So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the IAB > or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting > consensus? I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong > opinion on the answer. But if the answer is that we need consensus, then we > actually need to do a consensus call. > > The only value I see in "a few days" would be an opportunity for > wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as > expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what > was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have > been corrected. If that is what you were asking for, then that does make > sense. > > (thinking out loud...) >
Yes, that is what is was thinking about. Probably wisdom of the crowds could have helped with the wordsmithing part. And in my view even some little feedback (3-7 days) is better than none. And just to be clear: with such a short comment option, the goal is just comments not to get a rough consensus. All the best, Tobias
