Re: deadlock problem

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 13:44 America/Montreal, Christian Huitema 
wrote:
> 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.

Christian,

	ISOC BoT have for *years* been following an RFC-specified confirmation
process that does not appear to be in its bylaws.  IAB have for *years*
followed an RFC-specified confirmation process contrary to that 
specified
in the IAB Charter.  While IAB Chair during my time on the IAB, Brian
did not raise any question that IAB should follow that process.  I 
haven't
heard any complaint about this from any ISOC BoT in any of the past 
years.

	In fact, until I pointed out, within the last day or so, that the 
process
in the current I-D to update that RFC contained deadlock, this WG was on
a clear path to retain the broken RFC language and continuing to apply 
it to
both ISOC and IAB confirmation processes.

	At best, your claim is late in the day -- years late.  If IAB or ISOC
really had heartache over this (and I can say that the IAB had *no* 
anxiety
about it during my 4 years on the IAB and I heard zero individual 
complaints
about it), that REALLY should have been raised years ago (e.g. at any 
of the
IAB Chair transitions or when the first RFC on Nomcom procedures was 
published).

> 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'm truly focused *primarily* on eliminating the deadlock that the
current text legislates.

	And I'll note that if you adhere to the position you outline above
(i.e. that how a confirming body decides stuff is their concern only),
then this WG should delete the current text and ought not be discussing
"the way we manage indecision".

	As to how to do indecision, I think that boils down to (A) or (C)
versus (B) or (D).  I can live with any of those 4.

Yours,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com