From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 12:43:36 CDT
Henry Spencer wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>
>>Consensus ("rough" or otherwise) is not obtained when there are substantive
>>objections, which in this case there are...
>
>
> There are certainly vocal and persistent objections. Whether they are
> substantive is less clear.
The WG Chairs have declared "the way forward", defining the documents
that this WG is to produce and the topics appropriate for those
documents. The objections raised to Charles' text are absolutely
clearly substantive.
> Moreover, even if we stipulate for purposes of discussion that they are
> substantive, rough consensus does *not* require that all substantive
> objections go away, only that they be addressed. They must be examined
> and given fair consideration -- which these have been
Bullshit. At least John, I, and Eivind have gone on record that Charles'
text has no place in document #1 (USEFOR) but that its subject matter might
be appropriate for document #3. Yet Charles has steadfastly refused to
give *any* consideration to that, instead badgering Eivind and others
to accept Charles' partisan text on the false premise that it some text
on the matter must appear in document #1. This latest "rough consensus"
tact is his reaction to having been called on that false premise.
-- but there is no
> requirement that they be eliminated. Standards are compromises and do
> involve tradeoffs. A problem with a standard can be real and substantive
> and nevertheless be deemed acceptable to avoid greater problems. It's not
> possible to always make everyone happy; rough consensus only requires
> making most people not too unhappy.
Happiness is irrelevant -- the document content has been clearly defined
by the WG Chairs, and particular text is either consistent with such
content or not. That is an objective fact unrelated to "happiness".
>>Moreover, it is not the editor's role to declare consensus, particularly
>>when the editor is an interested party in the outcome. Until one or more
>>of the WG Chairs makes a ruling, your opinion is merely that, and carries
>>no weight.
>
>
> We unfortunately have no active WG Chair at the moment, but someone has to
> make such decisions if the discussion is not to stall indefinitely on
> disputed points.
That is not the Document Editor's role per RFCs 2028 and 2418. One of
our Chairs has indicated that he does read the WG messages, and that some
action was to be expected after the last IETF meeting. Perhaps he can update
us on the current state of affairs.
> This particular discussion has already gone on much too
> long.
On that we're in agreement.
> Unless and until one of the WG Chairs weighs in otherwise, I will
> abide by Charles's decision to close the topic for now
It's not Charles' decision to make.