Re: Adminrest: section 3.5
Scott Bradner wrote: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 says The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity cannot be achieved, the IAOC chair may conduct informal polls to determine the consensus of the group. In cases where it is necessary, some decisions may be made by voting. For the purpose of judging consensus or voting, only the voting members (as defined in Section 4) shall be counted. If voting results in a tie, then IAOC chair decides how to proceed with the decision process. Editors' note: The above text was changed from the previous version. Are the voting rules in the preceding paragraph sufficient? Do we need to define rules for determining a quorum? I would not define a quorum because I would hope that this work would not require face to face or conference call meetings - I'd just say that the vote takes place among the current members of the IAOC. but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure if the IAD proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the IAOC. I'd rather that mininum vote required to proceed (in those cases where a vote is needed because of disagreement) be a majority plus one While I agree with the principle of seeking consensus, in a small committee like this requiring a supermajority is tricky. So I'd be inclined to leave it as is, but I wouldn't go to war over it. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Adminrest: section 3.5
Scott == Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scott but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure Scott if the IAD proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the Scott IAOC. I'd rather that mininum vote required to proceed (in Scott those cases where a vote is needed because of disagreement) Scott be a majority plus one I disagree. One area consensus-based decision making deals very poorly with is the ability to make a decision between two close but both quite acceptable options. For example let's say the IAOC is deciding between two possible contracts and both contracts are acceptable to all the members. Some prefer one; some prefer the other. This actually comes up reasonably often and voting with majority wins is a fine solution. Presumably the IAOC will have flexibility to define super-majority requirements for classes of decisions that they believe might require these decisions. Also, if an unacceptable decision is made, it can be appealed. I think saying less is better than more in this instance and thus support the current text. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Adminrest: section 3.5
Scott writes: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 says The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity cannot be achieved, the IAOC chair may conduct informal polls to determine the consensus of the group. In cases where it is necessary, some decisions may be made by voting. For the purpose of judging consensus or voting, only the voting members (as defined in Section 4) shall be counted. If voting results in a tie, then IAOC chair decides how to proceed with the decision process. Editors' note: The above text was changed from the previous version. Are the voting rules in the preceding paragraph sufficient? Do we need to define rules for determining a quorum? I would not define a quorum because I would hope that this work would not require face to face or conference call meetings - I'd just say that the vote takes place among the current members of the IAOC. but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure if the IAD proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the IAOC. I'd rather that mininum vote required to proceed (in those cases where a vote is needed because of disagreement) be a majority plus one My (personal) opinion is that current text is fine. And for difficult topics, the IAOC chair can decide that he will only go fowward with a majority plus one, so the current text allows the IETF chair to do so in cases where needed. We should trust such a chair also to do sensible things, no? Bert Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
