--On Friday, 20 October, 2006 06:45 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
Frank, I am (obviously) not speaking for the IESG here, but I
don't think that "at most 2 NO" is, or should be, dependent on
the number of IESG members. This should not be about a
sufficiently large majority. Instead, I believe that, if one AD
has a serious problem with a document, it might be an aberration
or individual issue. On the other hand, if there are two ADs
with problems serious enough to justify a "NO" vote --especially
if they are in different areas-- that we need some mechanism
other than voting to resolve the issues.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf