--On onsdag, desember 22, 2004 07:24:46 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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)
this is not what your previous emails said, which is one reason why I did not want to accept them - there you talked about the "whole IAOC being involved", which was different from "4 of the IAOC being in favour".
However, there can be situations where less than half the IAOC *is* an appropriate majority - consider, for instance, a situation where two of the IAOC are on holiday (leaving us with 6), one of the IAOC is employed by EvilCorp, and the IAOC has to handle a complaint on awarding a contract to EvilCorp (causing one to recuse), and for some reason the issue is urgent and can't wait for the remaining 2 members to come back.
I think attempting to work all these corner cases out in the BCP is not a Good Thing.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf