Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm going to last call the draft again. The "discuss" was about -02, the new "last call" will be about -03, here's a tiny URL for a diff: <http://tinyurl.com/y6c2nk> The iesg-discuss-criteria-02 I-D could be updated, it expired two months ago, and there's apparently a bug in its chapter 4 "DISCUSS Resolution": | the IESG has an alternative balloting procedure that can be | used to override a single discuss position. In the alternative | procedure, all ADs are required to enter a "yes" or "no" | position on the document. A document will be published if | two-thirds of the IESG state a position of "yes", and no more | than two ADs state a "no" position. Two-thirds of the IESG is | formally defined as two-thirds of the sitting ADs (current 9), | except for those who are recused from voting on the document | in question, rounded up to the next whole number. If three or | more ADs hold a "no" position on a document using the | alternative balloting procedure, or if a document fails to | gather the required number of "yes" positions, the document | will be returned to the WG with a "no" answer That's more or less clear for an IESG with 9 members: 4 "Abstain" would kill the document anyway, 5:4 is less than 2/3. 3 "Abstain" could still pass for an outcome 6:3. In the case of a pending DISCUSS and this alternative procedure 6:3 would fail, and 7:2 would pass, in essence 1/3 "no" is a veto. But the IESG has now 15 members, and it takes 6 "Abstain" to kill a document, while at most 5 "Abstain" could result in 10:5. With the same logic as above I'd expect that 10:5 would fail in the alternative procedure, and 11:4 would pass. But the draft gives 3 members a veto no matter how many members the IESG has. 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. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf