IESG voting procedures

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 14, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

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

Yes, I had read those procedures recently.   It's those very procedures that I have a problem with.

In particular this part is particularly heinous:

If an AD cannot get cooperation from the WG and cannot enter a ballot position that supports sending the document forward, then the AD should switch to "abstain."

That's completely inappropriate.   A document reviewer should never be expected to pretend like he doesn't have a problem with a document.   To expect an AD to change his vote to "abstain" is asking him to be dishonest and/or shirk responsibility. 

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf