"Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> writes:
Scott> but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure
Scott> if the IAD proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the
Scott> IAOC. I'd rather that mininum vote required to proceed (in
Scott> those cases where a vote is needed because of disagreement)
Scott> be a majority plus one
I disagree. One area consensus-based decision making deals very
poorly with is the ability to make a decision between two close but
both quite acceptable options. For example let's say the IAOC is
deciding between two possible contracts and both contracts are
acceptable to all the members. Some prefer one; some prefer the
other. This actually comes up reasonably often and voting with
majority wins is a fine solution.
Presumably the IAOC will have flexibility to define super-majority
requirements for classes of decisions that they believe might require
these decisions. Also, if an unacceptable decision is made, it can be
appealed.
I think saying less is better than more in this instance and thus
support the current text.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf