Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Handling Ballot Positions

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 00:35:42 -0500

Hi.  Nice job.
A comment which is not intended as either a criticism or of
anyone now on the IESG:

While I like both the content and presentation style of this
version, there have occasionally been situations in the distant
past in which an IESG member has taken and held a DISCUSS
because, despite IETF consensus during Last Call, to all
appearances they simply disagree with or don't like the
document.  Of course rumors about such things vastly exaggerate
their frequency.   If part of the purpose of this statement is
reassure those who are new to the system, I think it would be
very helpful to add a sentence or two that indicates that, while
problems are extremely rare (for reasons already mentioned), the
full IESG membership can override a DISCUSS that they conclude
is unreasonable and, as a last resort, an appeals procedure and
the IESG itself does not override the DISCUSS.   IIR, it has
never been necessary to exercise that possibility but, it does
exist in principle and knowing about it might be reassuring.  

   thanks,
    john

--On Friday, January 21, 2022 14:22 -0800 IESG Secretary
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has issued an IESG Statement on Handling Ballot
> Positions:
> 
> 21 Jan 2022
> 
> This document is written to help authors and chairs
> (especially newer authors and chairs) understand the purpose
> and meaning of IESG ballot positions and how best to respond
> to them. The most important piece of advice is "Don't
> Panic" but authors may have to do something!
> 
> Read more:
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-bal
> lot-positions/