John C Klensin wrote: > I don't think that "at most 2 NO" is, or should be, dependent on > the number of IESG members. Certainly not "is" in the DISCUSS draft, I wondered about "should". Somebody (thanks!) told me off list that I got "(current 9)" wrong, it's not the size of the IESG last year, it's ceil( 13*2/3 ) for a 9:4 result. And 5 "abstain" could always kill any really bad idea last year, now it takes 6 in the normal procedure without recuses. > 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. The draft says three ADs, 10:2 could pass. Was this alternative procedure ever used ? I'm a bit perplexed that there's no timeout for a pending DISCUSS. Nothing rush, a year or so, enough time to discuss issues, and eventually agree to disagree. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf