[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu Jul 7 07:32:54 PDT 2011


On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>> 
>> As for 1, final assessment, that is the IAB. As for 2, decision based on
>> their own preference or community rough consensus: I'd say it is the IAB that
>> takes responsibility for the final decision (so the decision is _theirs_).
>> However that decision is rooted in the sense of community rough consensus.
> 

First, the proposed text was the core of my contribution, I'm happy with the WFM, it allows another issue to be closed (if it works for others too).  The rest of this reply is me thinking out loud. We should probably take it off-list if we want to continue the discussion.

> Here's an attempt at clarifying the meaning of "rooted in the sense of community rough consensus":
> 
> 1. If the community provides no clear indication of rough consensus, can/should/will the IAB still make a decision?  If so, what kind of criteria will the IAB use.  For example, it might choose to use a vote of the IAB.

That depends, if a decision must be made and there is no clear indication than I believe the IAB must use its own mechanisms to get to a consensus (which are documented in 2850, from memory 7 for and no more than 2 dissents). I wish the chair who is subject to this a lot of wisdom.

> 
> 2. If the community provides a clear indication of rough consensus, but the majority (or more) of the IAB disagrees with it, is the IAB empowered to make a decisions that differs from the apparent community rough consensus?
> 


Technically, I believe that is possible. In that case BCP10 Section 7 might become relevant. 


--Olaf 

________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/











     



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list