I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt

[Keith Moore]

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 11:25  AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Finally, procedurally, I don't think we have a mechanism for a veto 
> today so there really shouldn't be a discussion about ways to 
> eliminate that mechanism.  What we have instead are circumstances in 
> which there is a potential for a de facto veto when procedures are not 
> followed and a tolerance for that behavior based partially on an IESG 
> dynamic of "we have to work together tomorrow regardless of what 
> happens to this document, and therefore must defer when one of us 
> feels strongly".   That dynamic is natural, and we shouldn't try to 
> change it significantly -- but it can also be used to cover up, or 
> even encourage, well-meaning but pathological behavior... and we need 
> to explore ways to stop that set of cycles.

this dynamic works both ways - sometimes it causes a document to be 
delayed without what looks like a good reason, but in my experience far 
more often it causes a bad document to get approved despite good 
reasons to not approve it.  both of these should IMHO be viewed as 
undesirable.

Keith