>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> writes:
Jeffrey> On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
Jeffrey> <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference
>> between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the
>> process.
Jeffrey> If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like
Jeffrey> you're suggesting some sort of reality-check process that
Jeffrey> is more lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we
Jeffrey> have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time for a
Jeffrey> dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some
Jeffrey> sense into them. But that only works if the participant
Jeffrey> has a good relationship with another AD, and while you
Jeffrey> hope that's true for WG chairs, that might not always be
Jeffrey> good enough.
Such a procedure exists. Go to the tracker, select a document and
click on the link that describes what the IESG votes mean (discuss vs
yes vs no objection)
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the alternate override
procedure that the chair can use.
It has never actually been used. We came very close once since I've
been on the IESG. In retrospect, I think we would have been better
off using the override procedure than spending an extra month dealing
with the issue. In my opinion the document was improved by resolving
the discuss but the improvement was not great and the frustration was.
Of course the override wouldn't have actually gotten the document
approved faster: another issue surfaced and took a long time to
resolve. The new issue was something that even the sponsor felt was
important to deal with.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf