ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-iesg-discuss-criteria

2006-10-20 19:48:09
John C Klensin wrote:
 
I don't think that "at most 2 NO" is, or should be, dependent on
the number of IESG members.

Certainly not "is" in the DISCUSS draft, I wondered about "should".

Somebody (thanks!) told me off list that I got "(current 9)" wrong,
it's not the size of the IESG last year, it's ceil( 13*2/3 ) for a
9:4 result.  And 5 "abstain" could always kill any really bad idea
last year, now it takes 6 in the normal procedure without recuses.

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.

The draft says three ADs, 10:2 could pass.  Was this alternative 
procedure ever used ?  I'm a bit perplexed that there's no timeout
for a pending DISCUSS.  Nothing rush, a year or so, enough time to
discuss issues, and eventually agree to disagree.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf