For what it's worth, I thought I remembered which document David was talking about in his second case, and confirmed that it was draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt. There are narrative minutes from the telechat where David's DISCUSS position was discussed, at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Narrative/iesg-narrative-minutes-02-16-2006.html, in case anyone wants to see what an IESG chat about ABSTAIN and override voting might look like... See "2.1.2 Returning Item". Thanks, Spencer From: "Fred Baker" <fred@xxxxxxxxx> > On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote: >> 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. > > In my experience, which is now dated, that has been the norm. During > my tenure, we had at least two cases where an AD said "'discuss' and > I'm not going to remove it no matter what". The first resulted in the > crafting of the override procedure; the second had us drawing that > sword. But the threat of its use resulted in the desired behavior, so > it was never actually used. There was a third that one could mention; > it resulted in the working group rewriting the document completely. > The rewrite was a dramatic improvement; the "discuss" was removed as > a result. _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf