And, to be clear on one point ... On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Benoit, > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > > > > > > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down > > vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed > text > > changes. > > > > That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've balloted > on > > as an AD :-) > > > > Spencer > > > >> > >> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. > >> > >> Regards, Benoit > >> > >> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 > >> for 2 so far today. > >> > >> Are we still tuning text in this draft? > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the > >> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to > >> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework. > >> > >> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to a > >> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing an > >> Alternate Ballot on Thursday. > >> > >> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), > but I > >> don't know what we're doing. > >> > > Me neither! > > I think that the IESG chair is the official holder of the state at the > moment, but my 0.02c: > > If we get to a no-discuss position (EKR holds the only discuss, > Alissa's is a "supports Ekr's discuss") I would assume that the > Alternate Ballot could be abandoned -- it seems that we would no > longer be deadlocked "by the above procedure". > > My personal view is that EKRs comments are helpful and could be easily > folded in - That's what I think, too, although I'm not the guy who gets to decide. I wasn't questioning any of EKR's comments. I just seek clue. Spencer > if we do have to ballot, I'd *think* that we are balloting > on the document as written, but that, if it passes, the responsible AD > (me) would take these as useful comments received during IESG eval, > treat the document as "Approved, point raised" and ask for them to be > folded in... > > Or something - we are kinda flying blind here. > W > > > > > > >> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either as > IESG > >> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other people > have > >> different expectations. > >> > >> Spencer > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSAWG mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
