Scott writes: > > draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 says > The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity > cannot be achieved, the IAOC chair may conduct informal polls to > determine the consensus of the group. In cases where it is > necessary, some decisions may be made by voting. For the purpose of > judging consensus or voting, only the "voting members" (as defined in > Section 4) shall be counted. If voting results in a tie, then IAOC > chair decides how to proceed with the decision process. > > Editors' note: The above text was changed from the previous > version. Are the voting rules in the preceding paragraph > sufficient? Do we need to define rules for determining a quorum? > > I would not define a quorum because I would hope that this work would not > require face to face or conference call meetings - I'd just say that > the vote takes place among the current members of the IAOC. > > but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure if the IAD > proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the IAOC. I'd rather that > mininum vote required to proceed (in those cases where a vote is > needed because of disagreement) be a majority plus one > My (personal) opinion is that current text is fine. And for difficult topics, the IAOC chair can decide that he will only go fowward with a "majority plus one", so the current text allows the IETF chair to do so in cases where needed. We should trust such a chair also to do sensible things, no? Bert > Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf