Hi all,
|>> We have determined beyond the shadow of a doubt |>> that the status quo is not, at this time, self-reducing. |> |> Under IRTF process rules, only the RG Chairs have the authority |> to make a consensus determination. | |That is an... interesting... refutation of established fact. <co-chair> I'm unaware of what established facts those might be. Let me set forth the facts as I know them: The IRTF operates under the procedures documented in RFC 2014, and under the direction of the IRTF Chair. Most significantly, we have been instructed by the IRTF Chair to operate openly. Within the bounds of those restrictions, the RRG Chairs are free to set their own process, and we have many times reiterated that we choose to operate under the "rough consensus" process that the IETF normally uses. We have selected this process specifically because we feel that without the buy in of the majority of the stakeholders, any architectural recommendation that we might make would be simply so much hot air. Note that this is a decision that is wholly local to the RRG and other IRTF RGs may have a variety of different processes. Per the "rough consensus" approach, as documented in RFC 2418, it is the responsibility of the Chairs to determine if we have reached rough consensus. See section 3.3 of RFC 2418. That said, please note that that does NOT mean that Bill is out-of-bounds in conducting his own, unofficial consensus checks, nor is he out-of-bounds in holding his own opinion of what the consensus is, nor in opining about what that consensus is. Those are simply unofficial opinions and do not represent the official consensus of the RRG. Please also note that the RRG co-chairs reserve the right to change the official processes of the RG in the future, as needs arise. I hope this clarifies any process questions. </co-chair> Happy Gregorian New Year, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
