Hi David, Thank you for sharing this information. Now that the community knows this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the process in future. regards, Lakshminath On 6/17/2008 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote: > Lakshminath, > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: >> I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override >> procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate. > > For the record, during my time in the IESG, we have had at least two > cases where override procedures were requested. One vote was requested > by me to clear a document that I was the shepherd for that got stuck > in the IESG for a very long period and where the DISCUSSing AD was not > responsive while trying to resolve a DISCUSS. > > In another case, I asked the shepherding AD to request an override vote > as I had fundamental issues with a document that was not likely to be > resolved in a timely matter due to the nature of my problems with the > document. Therefore, instead of me holding a DISCUSS forever and > leaving the document in limbo, I proposed that an override vote could > help us to force a decision early. > > If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal > override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was > enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I > decided that an informal strawpoll was enough to decide that I didn't > have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN. > > David Kessens > --- > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf