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

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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".)

No, there's always a ballot. The IESG is always supposed to respect
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.

And why would it be otherwise?

(OTOH the discuss-criteria document is written for technical documents.
We probably need to write up the criteria for DISCUSSes on process
documents. That's my insight of the day!)

    Brian