Jari Arkko wrote: > Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times > - particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are > left wondering what the silent majority is thinking. I've previously mentioned that I believe the current IESG ballot rules are insufficient. They should be changed to require a positive confirmation from *TWO* IESG members, not just one (the latter being the AD who brings the document to the IESG). I believe that at least two IESG members should confirm that they believe publication of a specific document is a good idea. IMO, the current rules go too far in substituting "rough consensus" by "no objection". -Martin