Keith Moore wrote: > > I actually think that the "rough consensus" model is not well suited for > IESG, because IESG rarely has enough members with the kind of expertise > needed to make that kind of judgment. The number of IESG members who > review a typical document and really understand its implications is > probably around 3-4. Most of those voting "no objection" have > probably not read the document, at least not in depth. So in a case > where there's one sponsoring AD voting yes and one AD voting discuss, > it's really close to one or two in favor against one opposed. But the > way IESG votes, distorts this and makes it look like many against one. While I agree to your later observation that some IESG ballots are more like 1:1 or 2:1 (because of the many "no objection"s), I still think that "rough consensus" should work for the IESG as well, and primarily because of the "issue resolution process" that it requires, rather than every IESG member being or becoming a technical expert on each particular subject. I believe that a certain "technical leadership" is desirable _and_ possible, and dismissing "rough consensus" and as well of some other mentioned ideas would reduce the IESG function to a mostly clerical one. IMHO the current ballot rules, especially those for standards action, are not very well suited for corner cases, and they can (and sometimes do) fail in an unsafe fashion. I would appreciate if they would be adjusted to fail in a safe fashion. One of the corner cases being discussed is when there is active dissent within the IESG, and how to cope with it. I'm not sure that there really is a problem. The assertion that has been made is that publishing a document (or approving a standards action) would be the "safe" failure mode, and I'm violently opposed to such a concept. If there is a problem, fix the issue resolution process. Adjusting the ballot rules to ignore dissent seems like a bad idea to me. A somewhat different issue, which I am actually more concerned about, is the unsafe failure in the lack-of-support situation. Why do we make it so hard to IESG to let a document "die"? One single "yes" and otherwise just "recuded" and "no objection" does not make a very good safeguard. It would seem much more sensible to require at least two ADs to provide a "yes"--which means that they should have performed some level of independent review of the document the document writeups and at least parts of controversial discussion (if that exists). Or alternatively, leave at 1 "yes", but make the responsible AD always recused for documents for which they requested an IETF LC. The issue is, if there is strong dissent, put the burden to resolve the dissent or to convince at least two IESG members that remaining dissent after issue resultion it is unjustified, on the document submittor(s) rather than leaving the burden on the IESG alone, as a procedural safeguard. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf