On Aug 14, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You can call it 'abstain' or you can
call it 'no'. What it means is that the AD concerned has
objections to the document that *cannot* be fixed (anything that
can be fixed is a 'discuss').
That's not how I interpret the voting procedures:
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."
...which seems to say that the question is not whether the objections can be
fixed, but rather, whether the WG is willing to fix them.
And I think in that case, there is
no way that one or two ADs should be able to block something
because they don't like it, *unless* they can convince the rest
of the IESG that the document is harmful.
Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when typically,
most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away. It might happen for a
significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an area-specific
technical flaw.
(Though as I understand the rules, 1/3 of the non-recused IESG members can
block a document by voting Abstain. Still, that's a very high barrier given
that in most cases 1/3 of IESG members won't even read the document.)
Why should a narrowly-focused working group get to hold sway unless a
significant fraction of the IESG objects? How does it benefit the Internet to
gloss over technical problems found during IESG review?
(not to single you out, Brian, because I'm fairly confident that a significant
plurality of IETF participants agree with you)
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf