Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
You are confusing the normal balloting process with the alternative one.
s/confusing/comparing/ - assuming that "yes + no objection" end up as "yes",
and "discuss + abstain" as "no". Skipping Brian's "R" to get 14 ballots.
there is no reason to assume that someone who voted "yes" or
"no-objection" under the normal procedure will vote "yes" under the
alternative procedure.
Sure, they can change their mind, the "abstain" also doesn't necessarily
end up as "no" if it's as you say a weak "abstain". But apparently the
"at most 2 NO" limit in the I-D was designed for an IESG with 9 members,
not 15.
Since ceil(14*2/3) == 10, that means that publishing the document would
require at least 10 "yes" votes and not more than 2 "no" votes.
Yes, 11:3 would fail, 3 "no" have a veto in this procedure. But it was
apparently tuned for 6:3, not 11:3 or even 12:3 (= 80% majority blocked
by 20%).
the alternative balloting procedure is intended to be applied as a last
resort, when it is clear that the AD holding the discuss and the WG or
individual who submitted the document cannot reconcile their differences
Yes, that's clear, I only looked at it again because the DISCUSS in this
example explicitly mentioned the discuss-criteria I-D. Nothing's wrong
if folks who think "no" can say "no" when asked. But maybe they won't
if this can have the dubious side-effect of a 20% veto.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf