+1. One single AD should never be allowed to block a document for which there appears to be community support. If a document really has serious problems, it is the job of the AD to rally other ADs or other impacted community members to oppose the document. Yes, this can be more work for an AD, but that's what they get paid the big bucks for. And if they can't do that, that really means the AD is an outlier and needs to step aside, no matter how strongly they feel about a topic. Thomas Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when > > typically, most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away. Â Â It might > > happen for a significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an > > area-specific technical flaw. > Here's the point: if an AD can't get at least one or two other ADs to > read the document and agree to join in the blocking, then that AD MUST > NOT be allowed to block the document. That's even the case if the AD > thinks she's found a serious flaw. Because if, out of 14 others in > the IESG, not ONE other is willing to read the document, understand > the issue, and agree on it. > According to the current rules: > 1. If ONE other AD places a second DISCUSS position OR enters a > comment that supports the first AD's DISCUSS, the document stays > blocked. The "single discuss" procedure does NOT kick in. > 2. If the WG still insists on pushing the document and the IESG goes > into the "alternate ballot" (which should be "alternative ballot", but > never mind that) procedure, the DISCUSSing AD still only needs TWO > other ADs to read the document and vote "no". Three "no" votes will > maintain the block on the document. > Really, if you can't get two out of fourteen technical leaders to > agree with you, maybe you just have to accept that you're wrong. If > things get down to such a rarely used (read: never) last-ditch > procedure, you can bet that essentially the entire IESG *will* read > the document (you might miss one or two ADs at the most, *maybe*). If > it gets to that and you're *right* to block, you should be able to > convince two of fourteen to support you. > There is NO case in which it makes sense for a *single* person, with > no peer support or agreement, to be allowed to block a document > indefinitely, no matter HOW serious she THINKS the problem she's found > is. > Barry > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf