At 10:04 PM +0000 11/5/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
How about "You can only write the word 'consensus' if your name is Tim Bray or Paul Hoffman."
That would be a good thing in general. The word "consensus" has a fairly particular meaning in the IETF (which, humorously, doesn't match the meaning in other Important Standards Bodies) and can be a bit inflammatory when issues are still live. Saying "general agreement so far" is a much better way to describe the state of things.
It'll be like be like PeeWee's Playhouse. If someone says it, all of the inanimate objects and PeeWee will start laughing "Ahahaha! Ahaha!"
Well, I notice that you brought this up on a Saturday. No one, including the WG chairs, is expected to be reading the list all the time, particularly on weekends. So, expecting all of the inanimate objects, including the WG chairs, to "scream real loud" (that's the wording that PeeWee used, not "start laughing "Ahahaha! Ahaha!"") when someone says something is inappropriate.
At 2:36 PM -0800 11/5/05, James M Snell wrote:
While the standards process (rfc2418) gives the chairs the responsibility for deciding ultimately when consensus has been established; there is nothing in the guidelines, that I can see, that would forbid a WG member from expressing an opinion about whether consensus seems to be forming over any particular issue.
Nothing forbids it, but nothing suggests that it is a good idea, either. In other IETF WGs, such an action has caused a huge waste of time discussing process.
So how about I write the word 'consensus' whenever I want and you feel free to ignore it or disagree with it whenever you want.
Or, how about you instead write "general agreement so far" if that is what you mean. That way, no one will confuse the official term "consensus" with what you mean.
If I have violated any part of the standards process, I'm quite certain that the chairs will let me know.
We would (eventually), and you haven't. Or, as Bill said most appropriately At 2:14 PM +0000 11/6/05, Bill de hÓra wrote:
These summaries are useful. We can draw our own impressions as to where consensus lies without introducing IETF Minispeak - the atmosphere on this list is already sufficiently unpleasant.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
