Re: Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > A couple of comments:
> >
> > 2.1.  Change Process Proposal
> >    The teams should function with an open discussion list, in the same
> >    way that the PESCI team has done.  The output of each team should be
> >    tested against the IETF consensus in the normal fashion; we believe
> >    that if there is clear IETF consensus that the proposal makes sense,
> >    the IESG (and the ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that consensus
> >    and approve of it.
> >
> > ==> the consensus judged by _whom_?  Did you mean rough consensus, btw?
>
> I understood that to mean a 4 week IETF last call and IESG approval. Do you
> we need a new mechanism?

You mean an IESG approval without a document ballot?  (Probably not, 
but I'm having trouble with the words "respect that consensus".)

If yes, who (from the IESG) will determine whether there is IETF 
consensus (consider that there may be mixed response from the IETF, so 
someone will need to evaluate which concerns need to be addressed)?

If no, this seems like the normal procedure (the previous comment 
still holds though) -- but still open to personal Discuss positions.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings