On Aug 14, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's not how I interpret the voting procedures: 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." ...which seems to say that the question is not whether the objections can be fixed, but rather, whether the WG is willing to fix them.
Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when typically, most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away. It might happen for a significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an area-specific technical flaw. (Though as I understand the rules, 1/3 of the non-recused IESG members can block a document by voting Abstain. Still, that's a very high barrier given that in most cases 1/3 of IESG members won't even read the document.) Why should a narrowly-focused working group get to hold sway unless a significant fraction of the IESG objects? How does it benefit the Internet to gloss over technical problems found during IESG review? (not to single you out, Brian, because I'm fairly confident that a significant plurality of IETF participants agree with you) Keith |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf