Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Lakshminath:

>Consider a hypothetical case: a large WG has strong consensus on one 
>of their documents, they believe it is within the charter's scope 
>and think that the document is in the best interest of the 
>Internet.  The WG chairs assess the consensus, and forward the 
>document to the shepherding AD.  The shepherding AD takes one last 
>look, determines everything is in order and sends it to last 
>call.  A few people on the IETF Discussion list think that the 
>proposed specification is about to doom the Internet.  A few others 
>who have not even read the document agree based on emails.  Most of 
>the WG members are either not on the IETF list or choose to stay silent.
>
>The shepherding AD considers those comments, thinks that those 
>issues have been addressed already and puts the document on the IESG 
>agenda. All other ADs (except one) think that everything is fine and 
>vote No Objection.  One AD agrees with the few people on the IETF 
>Discussion list and decides to put a DISCUSS and proceeds to hack 
>the document.  In the current model, other than the very few 
>exceptions cited recently, the AD gets what he or she wants for the 
>most part.  It is plausible that AD may do this even if no one else 
>identified a problem.

Actually, this sounds very similar to the case where an override vote 
was almost used.  Scheduling the override vote was sufficient for the 
DISCUSS-holding AD to ask for a strawpoll, and based on those 
results, the DISCUSS-holding AD cleared the DISCUSS position.

Russ 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf