IESG ballot procedures for documents

This document describes the IESG ballot procedures for documents. Three cases are described. For the vast majority of documents, the Normal IESG Ballot Procedure is used, and neither of the other procedures comes into play.

When a document comes to the IESG Telechat Agenda more than once, the Single Discuss IESG Ballot Procedure may apply. Finally, the IESG Chair may call for the Alternate IESG Ballot Procedure when the normal procedure is deadlocked. The alternate procedure requires a significant time commitment from all ADs, so it is not invoked lightly.

Normal IESG Ballot Procedure

The ballot options on a document for a normal IESG evaluation are:

• "Yes" means "I read it, I think it's good stuff, make it so."
  Non-blocking feedback, if any, can be left via the Comment field in the Datatracker.
• "No Objection" means "I do not object to this document going forward." The “No Objection” ballot position, also abbreviated as NoObj.
  This ballot position may be interpreted as one or more of the following:
  • “I read it, and I have no problem with it.”
  • “I read it, found no problems consistent with the DISCUSS criteria, but have non-blocking feedback to provide for the WG to consider.”
  • "This is outside my area of expertise", the balloting AD is exercising the ability to move a document forward on the basis of trust towards the other ADs.
  • “I read it, and I trust the sponsoring AD so I have no problem.”
  • “I listened to the discussion, and I have no problem.”

Non-blocking feedback, if any, can be left via the Comment field in the Datatracker.

• "Discuss" may mean "I cannot in good conscience send this document forward, but if it were fixed in these ways, I would change my ballot position to Yes, No Objection, or Abstain", or it may literally mean "I think we need to talk about this."

Text explaining the "Discuss" must be posted in the Discuss field of the Datatracker at the time that the "Discuss" ballot position is posted, and the discuss text should be sent by email to all affected parties (at least the IESG, the document shepherd, and the document authors, and in many cases to the working group (WG) as well).

Valid criteria for a "Discuss" ballot position are documented separately.

A "Discuss" ballot position may indicate a need for significant improvement in a draft prior to approval. If there is a substantive issue with a draft, it may need to be returned to the WG (or the authors for an AD-sponsored document) for resolution of the problem. If an AD cannot get cooperation from the WG (or the authors for an AD-sponsored document) and cannot enter a ballot position that supports sending the document forward, then the AD could switch to "Abstain."

A “Discuss” ballot position may also contain non-blocking feedback in the Comment field of the Datatracker.

• "Abstain" means "I cannot support sending this document forward." There are at least two reasons an AD might post this ballot position:
  • “I am so strongly opposed to the document that I am unwilling to ’Discuss’".
  • “I oppose this document, but understand that others differ and I am not going to stand in the way of the others”.

The AD should explain the reason for their “Abstain” position in the Comment field of the Datatracker.

• "Recuse" means "I cannot post a ballot position due to a conflict of interest in the document." This ballot position is used when the AD is a document author, WG chair, or otherwise interested party.
  The AD should explain the reason for their “Recuse” position in the Comment field of the Datatracker.

• "Defer" means "Give me one more telechat cycle to read the document." In very unusual circumstances, the document can be deferred for a second telechat cycle with the consent of the IESG Chair. Other discussion may and presumably will continue, but no decision will be reached until the agreed time has elapsed or all of the ADs that wanted to defer the document have posted ballot positions, whichever happens earlier. A "Defer" ballot position should be avoided as much as possible.

Explanatory text provided for any ballot position must be self-contained and be made directly in the relevant Datatracker field. For a BCP or Standards-Track document, approval requires one “Yes” with at least 2/3 of all non-recused ADs voting “Yes” or “No Objection”, and no “Discuss” ballot positions. (In cases where 2/3 of all non-recused ADs is not a whole number, the number will be rounded up.) The IESG secretary will refer to the ballot during the telechat, and solicit additional ballot positions from ADs who have not registered a position. Posting ballot positions in the Datatracker prior to the telechat is preferred. This allows circulation of important comments and Discuss text in advance, and allows the ADs to prepare for any needed discussion. If time allows, it is possible for a “Discuss” ballot position to be cleared by email (i.e., an AD changing their position from a blocking “Discuss” position to a non-blocking one such as “No Objection”) prior to the telechat. During the telechat, the IESG Secretary will tally the ballot positions and announce the result. After the telechat, the ballot positions for the documents that are not approved may still be edited as discussions progress between the ADs, authors, and the WG.

For an Informational, Experimental, or Historic document, approval requires one “Yes” with no “Discuss” ballots. The IESG secretary will refer to the ballot during the telechat, but there will not be a poll of ADs who have not posted a ballot position. If there are no “Discuss” ballot positions, the IESG Secretary will ask, "Does any AD object to this document being published?" If an AD raises an objection, a “Discuss” position must be posted at that time.

Additional guidance to authors on handling feedback in the IESG ballot can be found in the IESG statement on Handling Ballot Positions.

A document for which an AD has not registered a ballot position defaults to a ‘No Record’ position.

Single Discuss IESG Ballot Procedure

This procedure is a follow-on procedure to the normal procedure, and it is used to resolve a single “Discuss” ballot position that is blocking document advancement.

If a sponsoring AD places the document on the agenda for a second IESG telechat, there is only one “Discuss” ballot position, no other ADs have expressed support for that “Discuss” ballot position, and the document otherwise has sufficient “Yes” or “No Objection” ballot positions for approval, then the document is simply approved, essentially overriding the single Discuss-holding AD.

The override can be prevented by any other AD expressing support for the posted “Discuss” position. Support for the “Discuss” position must be noted by entering or updating a ballot position other than “Yes” with accompanying text in the Comment field of the Datatracker that says, "I support the Discuss position held by ."

Alternate IESG Ballot Procedure

The alternate procedure is invoked by the IESG Chair in the event that the IESG deadlocks using the above procedures. The IESG Chair tells the ADs that the alternate procedure will be used for a particular document, and then:

• All ADs must read the document by a time stated by the IESG chair.
• During the IESG telechat an up-down vote is taken, with the following ballot positions:
  • "Yes" means "I read it, and it should be approved."
  • "No" means "I read it, and it should not be approved."
  • "Recuse" has the same meaning as in the normal ballot procedure

Approval requires 2/3 of all non-recused ADs to vote “Yes” and not more than two ADs may vote “No”. If the document is not approved, then it is sent back to the WG (or the author for an individual contribution) by the responsible AD. The WG should perform a review of this document and their charter. These reviews may have many different results, which include changing the intended status of work on a particular topic (such as Experimental instead of Standards-Track), dropping one or more topics from the document or charter, and closing the entire WG.

History

The original version of this document was approved by the IESG on 21 May 2009 and updated 14 August 2014.