In the -03 version of the document, the following text occurs:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, the IAOC chair may conduct informal polls to
determine the consensus of the group. In cases where it is
necessary, some decisions may be made by voting. For the purpose of
judging consensus or voting, only the "voting members" (as defined in
Section 4) shall be counted. If voting results in a tie, then IAOC
chair decides how to proceed with the decision process.
IAOC decisions are taken by a majority of the non-conflicted IAOC
members who are available to vote, whether in person or via other
reasonable means determined to be suitable by the members of the
IAOC. The IAOC decides further details about its decision-making
rules. These rules will be made public.
The IAOC shall establish and publish rules to handle conflict of
interest situations.
All IAOC decisions shall be minuted, and IAOC minutes shall be
published regularly.
Scott Bradner raised the issue that he thought this section should include
quorum rules. This debate forked:
- Rob Austein and I argued strongly that the IAOC should set those detailed
rules, and that the BCP was not the right place to put them; Brian
Carpenter and Bert Wijnen spoke out in support of that.
- Scott Bradner, John Klensin, Avri Doria, Brian Carpenter and Spencer
Dawkins made (good) suggestions on what the quorum rules should be,
including interesting topics like emergency powers, appropriate
technologies for voting, the interaction between rules for conflict of
interest and quorum rules and so on - but apart from the comments from
Brian early in the discussion (not needed) and Scott's (which I interpreted
as saying it needed to be in the BCP), I did not see any explicit statement
in their comments on whether the quorum rules needed to be in the BCP or
not.
My personal opinion is that the debate has given compelling evidence that
quorum rules are NOT easy to get right, which also leads me to believe that
we will need to change them on a shorter timescale than the expected rate
of change of the BCP - thus that they should NOT be in the BCP; the BCP
should just require that they are public. (a rule that says "two people in
a closet" is probably a short road to the recall process...) But this
process is not about my opinion, but the IETF's opinion.
So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should be in the
BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should not be?
Brian, John, Avri and Spencer: Can you state if you have an opinion about
whether or not the quorum rules should be in the document or not?
Let's get this point settled before we dig into what the quorum rules
should be - if they don't go into the BCP, the whole text of #746 gets
passed as "advice from the IETF community to the IAOC".
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf