On Friday, October 20, 2006 04:01:13 AM +0200 Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For the draft in question that means that it's now at 12:2, and if one member changes his or her mind it could fail with a 11:3.
You are confusing the normal balloting process with the alternative one. Under the normal process, three IESG members have voted "yes" on this document (which is 3x the usual number), 9 have voted no-obj, two have abstained (including Brian, who's recused himself because he is the author), and there is one discuss.
The alternative balloting procedure is designed to allow the IESG to approve a document over the strong objections of one of its members (presumably, an IESG member having only weak objections would enter an "abstain", as Ted Hardie has done in this case). This is an unusual step requiring a strong consensus, and it is not designed to be easy. As far as I can tell, it also has not been invoked for this document.
but since you brought it up, let's look at this. The text you quoted matches that at <http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html>, and requires two-thirds "yes" and not more than two "no" votes. Note that these are votes entered specifically under the alternative balloting procedure; they are not derived from any normal votes which may have been entered. In particular, there is no reason to assume that someone who voted "yes" or "no-objection" under the normal procedure will vote "yes" under the alternative procedure. Under the normal procedure, a "yes" vote means "I think this document should be published" and a no-obj means "I don't have any strong feelings against publishing this document"; under the alternative procedure, a "yes" mean "I really think this document should be published, even though person X has objections". The latter is rather a stronger statement.
Now, since Brian is the document author and has recused himself, there are 14 sitting AD's who would be eligible to cast votes under the alternative procedure. Since ceil(14*2/3) == 10, that means that publishing the document would require at least 10 "yes" votes and not more than 2 "no" votes. Since "abstain" and "no" do not mean the same thing, the document could pass under that procedure with as many as 4 IESG members abstaining -- but not with more than 2 actively voting "no".
Finally, note that the alternative balloting procedure is intended to be applied as a last resort, when it is clear that the AD holding the discuss and the WG or individual who submitted the document cannot reconcile their differences. I would be quite surprised to see this procedure invoked for the document now under discussion, since it is clear that steps are actively being undertaken to try to address David's concerns.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf