--On Friday, 20 October, 2006 06:45 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
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.
Frank, I am (obviously) not speaking for the IESG here, but I
don't think that "at most 2 NO" is, or should be, dependent on
the number of IESG members. This should not be about a
sufficiently large majority. Instead, I believe that, if one AD
has a serious problem with a document, it might be an aberration
or individual issue. 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 issues.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf