RE: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

kre wrote:
> ....
>   | All documents produced as part of this course of action will
>   | be subject to discussion by the WG, and they will go through
>   | WG last call, etc.  In keeping with normal IETF processes,
>   | these documents won't be sent to the IESG unless they
>   | represent the consensus of the WG at that time.
> 
> Fine.   In that case, why not just tell everyone that the SF+list
> "vote" is irrelevant for all purposes.   Anyone can submit a new
> document any time, and have it considered by the WG.   If there
> are new versions of any of these documents being written, 
> they can be studied when they appear to see if they meet the 
> overall demands of this group (and then eventually, of the 
> IETF as a whole).
> 
> Doing that would certainly end my (current) objections, and 
> while I can't speak for Tony, it might well end his appeal as well.

I am looking to have the declaration of consensus repealed. It doesn't
matter if that is done voluntarily by the chair's, or external directive. We
can't allow chairs to be declaring consensus when no one, including the
chair, knows the meaning of the question. Explicitly acknowledging that
there would be multiple meanings for yes as well as no, is not the way to
ask a valid question. Allowing the declaration to stand is handing the chair
a blank-check to tell the WG what it agreed to.

Tony