On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Benoit, > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > > > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down > vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed text > changes. > > That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've balloted on > as an AD :-) > > Spencer > >> >> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. >> >> Regards, Benoit >> >> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 >> for 2 so far today. >> >> Are we still tuning text in this draft? >> >> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the >> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to >> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework. >> >> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to a >> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing an >> Alternate Ballot on Thursday. >> >> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), but I >> don't know what we're doing. >>
Me neither! I think that the IESG chair is the official holder of the state at the moment, but my 0.02c: If we get to a no-discuss position (EKR holds the only discuss, Alissa's is a "supports Ekr's discuss") I would assume that the Alternate Ballot could be abandoned -- it seems that we would no longer be deadlocked "by the above procedure". My personal view is that EKRs comments are helpful and could be easily folded in - if we do have to ballot, I'd *think* that we are balloting on the document as written, but that, if it passes, the responsible AD (me) would take these as useful comments received during IESG eval, treat the document as "Approved, point raised" and ask for them to be folded in... Or something - we are kinda flying blind here. W >> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either as IESG >> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other people have >> different expectations. >> >> Spencer >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
