Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm going to last call the draft again.
The "discuss" was about -02, the new "last call" will be about
-03, here's a tiny URL for a diff: <http://tinyurl.com/y6c2nk>
The iesg-discuss-criteria-02 I-D could be updated, it expired
two months ago, and there's apparently a bug in its chapter 4
"DISCUSS Resolution":
| the IESG has an alternative balloting procedure that can be
| used to override a single discuss position. In the alternative
| procedure, all ADs are required to enter a "yes" or "no"
| position on the document. A document will be published if
| two-thirds of the IESG state a position of "yes", and no more
| than two ADs state a "no" position. Two-thirds of the IESG is
| formally defined as two-thirds of the sitting ADs (current 9),
| except for those who are recused from voting on the document
| in question, rounded up to the next whole number. If three or
| more ADs hold a "no" position on a document using the
| alternative balloting procedure, or if a document fails to
| gather the required number of "yes" positions, the document
| will be returned to the WG with a "no" answer
That's more or less clear for an IESG with 9 members:
4 "Abstain" would kill the document anyway, 5:4 is less than 2/3.
3 "Abstain" could still pass for an outcome 6:3.
In the case of a pending DISCUSS and this alternative procedure
6:3 would fail, and 7:2 would pass, in essence 1/3 "no" is a veto.
But the IESG has now 15 members, and it takes 6 "Abstain" to kill
a document, while at most 5 "Abstain" could result in 10:5.
With the same logic as above I'd expect that 10:5 would fail in
the alternative procedure, and 11:4 would pass. But the draft
gives 3 members a veto no matter how many members the IESG has.
For the draft in question that means that it's now at 12:2, and
if one member changes his or her mind it could fail with a 11:3.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf