>>> I really have to wonder if the entire yes/no-obj/discuss voting model >>> is appropriate for document advancement. For initial approval at >>> proposed, sure, having the ability to "discuss" the document makes >>> all sorts of sense. But for subsequent steps that virtue is a lot >>> obvious, to me at least. >> >> This, IMHO, is the right question: Does yes/no-obj/discuss resolve >> the right issues when advancing from PS to DS? > > IMO, IESG members ought to be able to vote "no" if, after first voting "discuss" and not having the issue resolved within a well-defined amount of time, they still believe that the document should not progress. That goes for any standards level. > > (That's not to say that a single "no" vote should suffice to block progress of a document.) > > "Discuss" is not the problem. "Discuss" is actually a really good idea. The problem is the lack of a "no" vote, which causes people to interpret "discuss" as if it were "no". We are a bit off topic here, at least for this subject line. The IESG did make some changes to the voting procedures a couple of years ago. The change was to make it clear that a single DISCUSS position could not block a document. That is, the IESG believes in rough consensus too. The current rules are available here: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html Now, please return to the Last Call discussion of draft-housley-two-maturity-levels on this subject line. If we want to discuss the IESG ballot process further, please start a new thread. Russ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf