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

Russ Housley <> Fri, 27 June 2008 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3839528C1C1; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE79A3A69BB for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlZjpousCyy3 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id CB0713A6B31 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11223 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jun 2008 15:32:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 27 Jun 2008 15:32:31 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:32:12 -0400
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
From: Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:33 -0700
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"


>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.


Ietf mailing list