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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf