Well, tomorrow (Friday) may well be a very interesting IESG meeting.
Recently, the SPF-classic I-D has gained two yes votes (one was
previously a 'discuss'). And, true to his word, Ted Hardie has
changed his discuss back to Yes now that the issues I asked him to
consider (standard track and the relationship with MARID) have been
resolved.
If I count things correctly, SPF is still one vote short of getting
approval, with 4 people who haven't voted yet. Of course, any IESG
member can change the their vote at any time, so would could move
backwards, but I think we are much more likely to move forward.
The voting currently stands as:
Brian Carpenter [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ted Hardie [ X ] [ ] [ . ] [ ]
Sam Hartman [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scott Hollenbeck [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Russ Housley [ ] [ X ] [ . ] [ ]
David Kessens [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ]
Allison Mankin [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Jon Peterson [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Mark Townsley [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Margaret Wasserman [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
"Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs are
needed for approval. [and at least one Yes vote.]
If I calculate this right, 13*2/3 = 8.67 -> 9 votes are needed, and
SPF-classic has 8, with 4 voters left to cast a vote.
The SID I-Ds has also picked up two votes, but also had two "discuss"
votes changed to "abstain". Abstain is the closest that you can get
to a "no" vote on the IESG ballots.
Yes No-Objection Discuss Abstain
Brian Carpenter [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ted Hardie [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Sam Hartman [ ] [ ] [ . ] [ X ]
Scott Hollenbeck [ ] [ ] [ . ] [ X ]
Russ Housley [ ] [ X ] [ . ] [ ]
David Kessens [ ] [ ] [ . ] [ X ]
Allison Mankin [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Jon Peterson [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Mark Townsley [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Margaret Wasserman [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Again, 9 votes are needed, SID has 7, with 3 voters left to cast a
vote.
My prediction: Either both sets will pass tomorrow, or they both
won't.
Also up for IESG review are the questions I asked several days ago
about the reuse of SPFv1 records. See:
http://moongroup.com/pipermail/spf-council/2005-June/000329.html
-wayne