On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gond...@gondrom.org> wrote:
> 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. I imagine that's exctly the part of course that they aren't interested in once they're hashed out a high-level statement (and have general agreement between the signatories ) is more input. It seems dramatically simpler to just make the satement as individuals who put their name on something. > 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. > We have a process for obtaining consensus. It takes a little while. > All the best, Tobias >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
