Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-08-15 04:29, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 14, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
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
Yes, I had read those procedures recently. It's those very procedures that
I have a problem with.
In particular this part is particularly heinous:
If an AD cannot get cooperation from the WG and cannot enter a ballot
position that supports sending the document forward, then the AD should
switch to "abstain."
That's completely inappropriate. A document reviewer should never be
expected to pretend like he doesn't have a problem with a document. To
expect an AD to change his vote to "abstain" is asking him to be dishonest
and/or shirk responsibility.
iirc the IESG used to call this kind of abstention "holding
one's nose", but it can't be distinguished in the ballot from
an abstention "for cause" (conflict of interest). In theory,
you can find out which applies from the history in the tracker
or from the IESG minutes.
The point is to avoid blocking a document that the WG has
consciously chosen to support, and that has no concrete,
actionable defects, just because one or two ADs simply dislike
it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf