FW: WG (rough) consensus) [was RE: WG document status]

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Kireeti writes:
> > > WG Last Call for this draft is over.  And over.  And over.  It's
> > > DONE.  Consensus was rather rough.  That's a pity -- it would be
> > > nice to make everyone happy.
> > 
> > Yes, last call was *declared* over.
> 
> That's what a chair is supposed to do.  Check with the ADs.
> 
I support that a WG chair(s) has(ve) the responsibility to figure out what
the (rough, sometimes even very rough) consensus is. In fact, RFC2418,
sect 3.3 explains this.
It is great/best if he (they) declare(s) that on the mailing list, 
so that everybody can see (and hopefully understand) exactly what 
the WG chair will report to the AD (and thus IESG) as being the WG
(very rough or rough) consensus.

When/if the WG chair(s) DO make such a declaration, and a WG member feels
that this is NOT true, then you can raise that to the mailing list or
just to the WG chairs and copy ADs.

Be prepared to point out exactly why you think the chair is wrong and
what you think the (rough) consensus is and why. WG chairs will answer,
and if you cannot get to agreement with WG chair(s), then you can ask
ADs for their opinion (this is the escalation stage).
For exact escalation procedure, see RFC 2026 sect 6.5

So... this WG has been (re-)discussing many topics many times.
I am very happy to see that the chair(s) are now trying to gauge 
(rough) consensus on some topics. I would hope everybody tries to 
help to reach (rough) consensus. 

So that also means that if you have serious concern that the WG chairs
are NOT reading the (rough) consensus properly, then NOW is the time
to speak up and explain why. Not recycle the whole detailed discussions.
Explain what you think the (rough) consensus is in your view and why.

Bert and Scott
speaking as ADs.