On 21/10/2024 20:28, Deirdre Connolly wrote:
All discourse between the FATT and the WG has names attached, includingwhat has happened already.
Earlier Joe said: "The current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT feedback to specific individuals." Has that changed? If not, I consider the his and your statements in conflict.
All decisions about how to block, evolve, last call, whatever is up to working group consensus.
Sorry, I've lost track: where's that written down again? Ta, S.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 3:09 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:Hiya, On 21/10/2024 18:43, Salz, Rich wrote:Why not have a consensus call?It's not clear to me that the IETF process allows WG chairs or a WG to grant power to anonymous reviewers. Doing so would be a BIG change and e.g. would allow those who might favour specific gov or company or NGO positions to exert the same level of influence should they find a WG or set of WG chairs who agreed with that. I haven't done a lawyerly trawl of process RFCs: 2026 only says "anonymous" alongside FTP, but does say: "Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion." [1] I'd argue that the idea of anonymous reviewers with direct influence over the IETF process is basically anathema. Cheers, S. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2026#section-6.5 _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
