harald asks > My reading of the discussion is that there is no support for making such a > requirement (too many corner cases with absent members), and that writing > detailed rules on IAOC decision making into the BCP is a Bad Idea. > > However, the idea of IAOC *having* such decision rules seems good. > Suggested resolution: > > Add after the first section of 3.4: > > The IAOC decides further details about its decision-making rules. > These rules will be made public. > > OK? I think the added statement is fine I do not like this resolution - I think it would be very bad to have a situation where a bare majority of the IAOC (5) can hold a face to face (or conference call) meeting and then have a bare majority (3) of those present make a binding decision (to approve a contractor for example) - this would wind up with a minority of the IAOC making such a decision. That minority (or even the discussion) might not include the IETF or IAB chair, the ISOC prez etc - that seems like a very bad situation. it seems to me to be a no brainer to require that decisions be only binding if the majority of the IAOC agree one way of another (in person or via email) (the situation of one member being (literally) in the woods does not make any difference -- if 4 members were in the woods such that one cound not get a majority of the 8-member IAOC then maybe the decision should wait anyway) Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf