wayne wrote:
why did you delete off the voting line for Harald
Harald is the former IETF Chair, he was still the Chair when
the ballot started in February.
If his vote doesn't count, why would he have a voting line?
Probably JFTR. Another AD is not more AD, he has also a line.
And I fear he can't update his old SPF-[Discuss] anymore.
Brian Carpenter is not an AD.
The Chair is the AD of the "general area" and the listmom of
the general list (unless he appoints a moderator of course):
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#General Area>
Secondly, I don't think "abstain" is the same as "recused".
Me too. If my dictionary makes sense it could be about cases
where an AD submitted an individual draft.
"Abstain" is about the closest you can come to a "no" vote
on the IESG balleting.
I thought that [discuss] is "no", but your link explains it:
Indeed, [abstain] is a kind of "no". Your link also explains
"recuse", my dictionary was correct.
I'm sure others do too.
Yes, William's datatracker update info is always very welcome,
otherwise I'd miss changes for weeks. So the actual state is
2/3 of 13 = 9. SID has 5, it still needs 4, and 3 are not
inclined to support it. 1 pending [discuss] blocks it anyway.
So it needs _all_ 4 remaining votes to pass.
If there are no special rules for "experimental" status. For
SPF it's 6 okay, 1 blocking [discuss], 1 "abtstain". It needs
3 of the 5 remaining votes. The [discuss] will of course stay.
Bye, Frank