On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, David,On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote:> Maybe introduce a new state 'Other AD' which would be set
> automatically if an AD has not entered a ballot but another in their
> area has.
>
> So if there are three ADs and one enters a ACCEPT, her two colleagues
> state will be set to OTHER-AD. Then another reads the draft and
> decides it is a disaster area, they change their vote from OTHER-AD to
> DISCUSS.
I like that idea - it provides a no-action-required means for an AD
to not have to do anything about a draft, while assuring the community
that her Area has it covered, and setting the expectation that an AD
doing nothing about a draft is ok (because her colleague has it covered).You poked at something here that turns out to matter to the TSV ADs, so just to make it explicit ...Martin and I do talk about what's on 80 percent of the telechat agendas, and divide up at least some of the reading, but sometimes we don't talk (because we're busy), and even if we did - we might know that Spencer read draft-ietf-little-rabbit-froofroo because he knows a lot about rodents and Martin trusted him and balloted No-Obj, but no one else, even on the IESG and much less on the notification list or in the broader community, knows that today.That's not a huge problem (obviously), but it has turned out to be helpful that some people know that (when we tell them), and if this was obvious to everyone automatically, well, ...
Thanks for the ideas. I agree with Spencer, this happens between ADs when needed already, so I don't think a change in the ballots help as they have this flexibility with the meaning of No Objection already.
"Communication is very important ... as I learned in my second marriage"Spencer
Best regards,
Kathleen