Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Tue, 17 June 2008 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9913A6B6B; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4FF3A6B6B; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.289
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fjS7+v3rsVkp; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9644E3A6A53; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s73602 ( []) by (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1K8gpE3Xgl-00041m; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:26:43 -0400
Message-ID: <008501c8d0b0$3bf76670$>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: "IETF Discussion" <>
References: <><> <> <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:27:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19Y+3hENzOeUMcRLkff5/FuAvL6A3DgwAHAdVO t1RQnC+1p/bDajqO7+CF4UvZXLUIwTTfSX7n2h0bgJJsy9nK4T l8AUe+B8uHZh6pLnSGjUuwxm4B8PYLGrvqJkie1SKo=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For what it's worth, I thought I remembered which document David was talking 
about in his second case, and confirmed that it was 

There are narrative minutes from the telechat where David's DISCUSS position 
was discussed, at, 
in case anyone wants to see what an IESG chat about ABSTAIN and override 
voting might look like...

See "2.1.2 Returning Item".



From: "Fred Baker" <>

> On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
>> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
>> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
>> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
>> decided that an informal strawpoll was enough to decide that I
>> didn't have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.
> In my experience, which is now dated, that has been the norm. During
> my tenure, we had at least two cases where an AD said "'discuss' and
> I'm not going to remove it no matter what". The first resulted in the
> crafting of the override procedure; the second had us drawing that
> sword. But the threat of its use resulted in the desired behavior, so
> it was never actually used. There was a third that one could mention;
> it resulted in the working group rewriting the document completely.
> The rewrite was a dramatic improvement; the "discuss" was removed as
> a result. 

IETF mailing list