Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-08-15 04:29, Keith Moore wrote: > 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. iirc the IESG used to call this kind of abstention "holding one's nose", but it can't be distinguished in the ballot from an abstention "for cause" (conflict of interest). In theory, you can find out which applies from the history in the tracker or from the IESG minutes. The point is to avoid blocking a document that the WG has consciously chosen to support, and that has no concrete, actionable defects, just because one or two ADs simply dislike it. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf