John C Klensin wrote:
I don't think that "at most 2 NO" is, or should be, dependent on
the number of IESG members.
Certainly not "is" in the DISCUSS draft, I wondered about "should".
Somebody (thanks!) told me off list that I got "(current 9)" wrong,
it's not the size of the IESG last year, it's ceil( 13*2/3 ) for a
9:4 result. And 5 "abstain" could always kill any really bad idea
last year, now it takes 6 in the normal procedure without recuses.
On the other hand, if there are two ADs with problems serious
enough to justify a "NO" vote --especially if they are in different
areas-- that we need some mechanism other than voting to resolve
The draft says three ADs, 10:2 could pass. Was this alternative
procedure ever used ? I'm a bit perplexed that there's no timeout
for a pending DISCUSS. Nothing rush, a year or so, enough time to
discuss issues, and eventually agree to disagree.
Ietf mailing list