IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: "Per Area" and "Per AD" review ballots?

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7571A0E10 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-LaxVvIWDMw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB9B1A0354 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.158]) by mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t2QN3cGm007670 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:03:39 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com t2QN3cGm007670
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1427411020; bh=JCTJziuw/oQtaLhWeOuMNFowFAs=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=TBFQ9w+eQfTAZUtj1igdxyTeWlTq6KUHLIgbswtaNyU25dPmijqpRwmPY2mWuIJdj LJBtMZ1u00X9XX/gCnvOOHrpGig8ouiz70ZLadvXbxy9IRMZ2oOO4CLnD0gW3Kxfae T9di12mb8ImKCnZm2raKscuI/UJYA6LtRQDC6FL8=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com t2QN3cGm007670
Received: from mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.20]) by maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:02:16 -0400
Received: from mxhub22.corp.emc.com (mxhub22.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.134]) by mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t2QN3Ksh003124 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:03:21 -0400
Received: from MXHUB207.corp.emc.com (10.253.68.33) by mxhub22.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:03:20 -0400
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.93]) by MXHUB207.corp.emc.com ([10.253.68.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:03:20 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker (phill@hallambaker.com)" <phill@hallambaker.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: "Per Area" and "Per AD" review ballots?
Thread-Topic: Re: "Per Area" and "Per AD" review ballots?
Thread-Index: AdBoGQz67ckrkL2aQOeSJsLgHK6aEg==
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:03:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936427E4E@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.96.39.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/061kYh12pVr8G45y2RAoKqVkEKI>
Cc: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:03:50 -0000

> 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).

Nit: ACCEPT -> NO OBJECTION or YES.

Thanks,
--David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email