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. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
