Brian,
On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-04-01 08:38, SM wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 00:07 31-03-2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
And that is exactly the problem with 'non-voting' status in a committee
that mainly operates by consensus. It allows people who really ought
to share accountability to apear to avoid it.
According to IOAC procedures:
"All decisions of the members must be approved by majority vote of
the members then in office."
I don't consider that as operating by consensus.
That is the tie-break rule. I can't speak for recent IAOCs, but when
I was a member we esentially always achieved consensus.
In my time on the IAOC, we usually reach consensus, but not always. The votes
are recorded in the public minutes.
But my point is that I believe the IETF Chair *should* have accountability
and that means being a formal voting member.
I agree.
Given the roles the IAB is taking on, such as the selection of an RSE, that
have a close relationship with the IAOC, I am concerned if the IAB Chair is not
also a IAOC voting member, or if the vote can or should be delegated. I do
note that the IAB chair is different from the IETF chair as the IAB chair is
selected by the IAB vs. the IETF chair is selected directly by the NOMCOM.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf