Harald,
My personal, generic, preference is to put as little specific
text into the BCP as possible. Broad principles, yes. But
anything very specific, especially anything that is likely to
need tuning, should be in the BCP only if there are really
strong reasons why that is necessary. So I'd be quite happy
with text directing the IAOC to establish voting rules and to
publish them or, better yet, to propose such rules for comment
to the IETF community and then establish and publish them (the
difference between the two is not a showstopper for me).
An extension of that point of view would argue that the present
(-03) text is excessive and could reasonably be further trimmed.
For example, I doubt that it is really necessary to walk through
the unanimity/ consensus-and-polls / voting/ ties model in this
much detail. Perhaps it would be preferable to just say that
the IAOC may vote when necessary, with only the "voting members"
voting (see how silly that sounds) and the chair figuring out
how to make decisions in the event of deadlock, but that the
IAOC should have a strong preference for unanimity or strong
consensus over close votes (and then insert the conflict of
interest statement). But, again, not a showstopper -- I think
we are close enough and that anything in this range would be ok
with me.
john
--On Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 22:22 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the -03 version of the document, the following text occurs:
>
> 3.4 IAOC Decision Making
>
> 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.
>
> IAOC decisions are taken by a majority of the
> non-conflicted IAOC
> members who are available to vote, whether in person or via
> other
> reasonable means determined to be suitable by the members
> of the
> IAOC. The IAOC decides further details about its
> decision-making
> rules. These rules will be made public.
>
> The IAOC shall establish and publish rules to handle
> conflict of
> interest situations.
>
> All IAOC decisions shall be minuted, and IAOC minutes shall
> be
> published regularly.
>
> Scott Bradner raised the issue that he thought this section
> should include quorum rules. This debate forked:
>
> - Rob Austein and I argued strongly that the IAOC should set
> those detailed rules, and that the BCP was not the right place
> to put them; Brian Carpenter and Bert Wijnen spoke out in
> support of that.
>
> - Scott Bradner, John Klensin, Avri Doria, Brian Carpenter and
> Spencer Dawkins made (good) suggestions on what the quorum
> rules should be, including interesting topics like emergency
> powers, appropriate technologies for voting, the interaction
> between rules for conflict of interest and quorum rules and so
> on - but apart from the comments from Brian early in the
> discussion (not needed) and Scott's (which I interpreted as
> saying it needed to be in the BCP), I did not see any explicit
> statement in their comments on whether the quorum rules needed
> to be in the BCP or not.
>
> My personal opinion is that the debate has given compelling
> evidence that quorum rules are NOT easy to get right, which
> also leads me to believe that we will need to change them on a
> shorter timescale than the expected rate of change of the BCP
> - thus that they should NOT be in the BCP; the BCP should just
> require that they are public. (a rule that says "two people in
> a closet" is probably a short road to the recall process...)
> But this process is not about my opinion, but the IETF's
> opinion.
>
> So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should
> be in the BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should
> not be?
>
> Brian, John, Avri and Spencer: Can you state if you have an
> opinion about whether or not the quorum rules should be in the
> document or not?
>
> Let's get this point settled before we dig into what the
> quorum rules should be - if they don't go into the BCP, the
> whole text of #746 gets passed as "advice from the IETF
> community to the IAOC".
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf