Yes, the updated proposal at the interim describes how all participants in any document triage sign on to the recommendation / triage (or lack thereof). The WG can decide to block the WGLC or any other document work based on the recommendations being fulfilled, or not.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 3:34 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > On 21/10/2024 20:28, Deirdre Connolly wrote: > > All discourse between the FATT and the WG has names attached, including > > what 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 > >> > > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
