RE: IESG voting procedures

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Both...

> > 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.

You can tell the difference because one is a "recuse" and the other is an
"abstain"

AFAIK the process that Keith calls out has never needed to be executed. It
exists to handle deadlock which might otherwise have to wait until the make-up
to the IESG changed or until NomCom was woken from its peaceful slumber. ADs are
not universal policemen and serve the will of the community. When an AD is
clearly in the rough against the consensus of the IESG they should not have the
power to individually block the progress of work for which there is clear IETF
consensus.

Note that when an AD does abstain he usually writes a strong comment in the
datatracker explaining why he is abstaining.

Adrian

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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]