On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working > group existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not > have been chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to publish, > therefore, it is assumed that the IETF has consensus to publish the > document, because the IETF tasked the working group to go off and do its > work, and the working group did it. > > Therefore, silence during IETF last call is not interpreted as apathy, but > rather a lack of objection to the completion of a process that the IETF > chose to embark on and that the IETF has brought to completion, through the > instrument of the working group that produced the document. > > This is in fact how consensus is evaluated during IETF last call. That's interesting - judging by the messages on this thread, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus on this... > If you think it should be done differently, write up a document and get > IETF consensus on it, and we can change the procedure to whatever you think > it should be. Maybe it would be an improvement. > > ... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any IETF comments?)
