I really have to wonder if the entire yes/no-obj/discuss voting model
is appropriate for document advancement. For initial approval at
proposed, sure, having the ability to "discuss" the document makes
all sorts of sense. But for subsequent steps that virtue is a lot
obvious, to me at least.
This, IMHO, is the right question: Does yes/no-obj/discuss resolve
the right issues when advancing from PS to DS?
IMO, IESG members ought to be able to vote "no" if, after first voting
"discuss" and not having the issue resolved within a well-defined amount of
time, they still believe that the document should not progress. That goes
for any standards level.
(That's not to say that a single "no" vote should suffice to block progress
of a document.)
"Discuss" is not the problem. "Discuss" is actually a really good idea. The
problem is the lack of a "no" vote, which causes people to interpret
"discuss" as if it were "no".
We are a bit off topic here, at least for this subject line.
The IESG did make some changes to the voting procedures a couple of years ago.
The change was to make it clear that a single DISCUSS position could not block
a document. That is, the IESG believes in rough consensus too. The current
rules are available here:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html
Now, please return to the Last Call discussion of
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels on this subject line. If we want to discuss
the IESG ballot process further, please start a new thread.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf