Subject: Adminrest: section 3.5

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:52:16 -0500 (EST)

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

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:01:28 +0100

> 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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:33:14 -0500

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> 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