RE: deadlock problem

[Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> 	Despite that, deadlock HAS been evident.  One might legitimately
> > No. I think we should simply avoid the potential for inconsistency
by
> > *not* defining IAB or ISOC voting rules in two different places.
> 
> They are unrelated kinds of voting rules, so no inconsistency exists
> right now -- nor would any of the proposed edits create an
> inconsistency.

Ran,

ISOC voting rules are defined by its by-laws. You just cannot define
them somewhere else. Even if you had some text in an RFC, that text
would only have an effect on the ISOC process if it was incorporated as
a modification to the by-laws. This is a fairly heavy weight process,
and I don't believe it is necessary.

You raise an important point, which is the possibility of a deadlock.
Inaction or indecision by a confirming body may result in a slate or a
candidate not being approved or rejected in time. It is fair to
recognize that whatever the voting rules of a confirming body, there are
three possible results: explicit confirmation, explicit rejection, or
indecision. The discussion should center on the way we manage
indecision, i.e. is it an implicit confirmation or an implicit
rejection?

I can see arguments both ways.

-- Christian Huitema