Document Blocking (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt)

[Keith Moore]

> >But if one or both Security ADs are deeply convinced that a draft 
> >constitutes a major security risk, or one or both Routing ADs are 
> >convinced that a draft will lead to routing loops, isn't it quite 
> >appropriate for them to block the document?
> 
> Absolutely not, but *not* because the document shouldn't be stopped. 
> The ADs who think that there is a serious problem with a document 
> should convince the rest of the IESG that the document is a bad idea. 
> Then, the IESG can come to consensus (or unanimity) to reject a 
> document (or at least stop it until the problem is fixed).
> 
> The problem with the current process (as I understand it) is that it 
> allows documents to be blocked by one or two IESG members without the 
> consensus of the group. 

I don't see this as a problem at all.  Many of the issues that hold up
document publication are not easily understood without expertise in that
particular area.  Also, IESG does not "block" documents, it explains
what is wrong with them and sends them back to the working group.  It's
simply infeasible to expect all of IESG to reach consensus on every
issue that requires a change to a document. For a deep technical issue,
there *might* be four people on IESG who really have enough appreciation
for that issue to express an informed opinion - and two of those might
have to stretch to understand it.

> But cases where it is required that one or two IESG members can, 
> without consensus, block a document, suggests serious misbehavior on 
> the part of the rest of the IESG.

No, it just means that a wide range of expertise is required to evaluate
all of the proposals that come through IETF.

> 1. In the case of a bad document, the IESG can come to consensus that 
> a document is bad.
> 
> 2. In the case of a bad document where one or two IESG members can't 
> convince the rest of the IESG, the one or two members can appeal, or 
> initiate recall procedures on the rest of the IESG.
> 
> I really wish someone could explain to me why we think it is 
> necessary to have IESG members vetoing each other's decisions as a 
> backstop.

It's a misleading to think of a vote as a veto, particularly when most
of the votes are usually "no objection".   Usually you vote "no
objection" when you recognize that you don't have enough expertise to
evaluate the proposal.   A common case is to have one or two Yes votes,
one or two Discuss votes, and the rest No Objection. That's not a case
of one or two people holding up the document against an overwhelming
majority. It's more like a tie.

Keith