Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > You are confusing the normal balloting process with the alternative one. s/confusing/comparing/ - assuming that "yes + no objection" end up as "yes", and "discuss + abstain" as "no". Skipping Brian's "R" to get 14 ballots. > 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. Sure, they can change their mind, the "abstain" also doesn't necessarily end up as "no" if it's as you say a weak "abstain". But apparently the "at most 2 NO" limit in the I-D was designed for an IESG with 9 members, not 15. > 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. Yes, 11:3 would fail, 3 "no" have a veto in this procedure. But it was apparently tuned for 6:3, not 11:3 or even 12:3 (= 80% majority blocked by 20%). > 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 Yes, that's clear, I only looked at it again because the DISCUSS in this example explicitly mentioned the discuss-criteria I-D. Nothing's wrong if folks who think "no" can say "no" when asked. But maybe they won't if this can have the dubious side-effect of a 20% veto. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf