"p" == <Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> writes:
p> Sam,
p> While it is at each AD's discretion not to sponsor some
p> document (and not initiate Standards Action), I don't think
p> this discretion should extend to having a veto at the IESG
p> table when the document and community input is considered ("if
p> you make changes I don't like, I'll withdraw my sponsorship").
p> It looks like our process rules don't really cover the case of
p> withdrawing sponsorship, but the existing IESG decision-making
p> process already allows an AD to object to publishing a
p> document, and I believe using a "sponsorship-withdrawal-veto"
p> instead is inappropriate.
The IESG internal process requires that anything going before the IESG
have a yes vote to be approved. I'm unwilling to vote yes on this
document nor am I willing to dedicate my time shepherding it through
the process. I believe that especially the allocation of my time for
individual submissions is entirely my decision to make.
I have left open the possibility that another AD would support this
work and choose to sponsor it.
But yes, I believe that the consensus of the IESG is that the sponsor
can remove their yes vote and that unless another sponsor steps
forward, that kills a document. We had a rather long discussion about
this and my understanding of the conclusion of that discussion is that
the IESG should not approve a document that no one on the IESG
affirmatively supports.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf