Re: deadlock problem

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I would prefer to remove the rule completely and leave the
CBs to set their own rules.

If we don't remove the rule, I would support (A) which is
effectively the status quo.

   Brian

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On page 10 of draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-04.txt in the paragraph
> with sub-heading "4.", there is a process problem.
> 
> The Nomcom WG needs to revise this text in order to avoid retaining an
> existing deadlock state in the confirmation process.  My concern is NOT
> hypothetical -- it describes a situation which actually arose during
> my 4 years on the IAB.
> 
> Facts:
>         - Some IAB members have abstained from some or all votes
>           to confirm IESG nominees from the Nomcom.
>         - The current text description requires at least half
>           of the IAB to agree either on confirmation or rejection
>           of each IESG nominee.
>         - Some instances of the IAB have been unable to get at least
>           half of the IAB onto either of those positions -- in part
>           because of abstensions by one or more sitting IAB members.
>         - This means that the IAB was unable to meet the process rule
>           currently specified.
> 
> Observation:
>         I see 4 fairly obvious ways to prevent a deadlock state.  More
> fixes might also exist.  The current process text should be changed such
> that no deadlock states can exist.
> 
>         Personally, having been down this road 4 times, I prefer fix (A)
> below -- on grounds that if a candidate is so controversial that at
> least 50%
> of the confirming body is not actively supportive of a given candidate
> then that candidate is clearly not the best choice for the Internet
> community.  However, ANY fix that removes the possibility of deadlock
> in the confirming body is acceptable to me.
> 
> Each proposal deletes the existing sentence:
>                 At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming bodies
>                 must agree to either confirm or reject each individual nominee.
> 
> and instead substitutes the new text:
> 
> (Proposal A)
>                 For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the sitting
>              members of the confirming bodies must agree to confirm that
> nominee.
>              Nominees that are not confirmed under this rule are considered to
> be
>                 rejected.
> 
> xor (Proposal B)
>                 For a given nominee to be rejected, at least one-half of the sitting
>              members of the confirming bodies must agree to reject that
> nominee.
>              Nominees that are not rejected under this rule are considered to
> be
>                 confirmed.
> 
> xor (Proposal C)
>                 For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the sitting
>                 members who do not abstain from voting on a particular nominee must
>                 agree to confirm that nominee.  Nominees that are not confirmed under
>                 this rule are considered to be rejected.
> 
> xor (Proposal D)
>                 For a given nominee to be rejected, at least one-half of the sitting
>                 members who do not abstain from voting on a particular nominee must
>                 agree to reject that nominee.  Nominees that are not rejected under
>                 this rule are considered to be confirmed.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Ran Atkinson
> rja@extremenetworks.com
> 
> Sitting IAB member from Spring 1999 to Spring 2003.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland