RE: Taking a DEFER on a ballot

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

OK, that what you say makes sense too...
In my mind I always had the picture that if I wanted a
DEFER (and wanted to be sure I had it as long as I needed
it with a max of the next telechat), then I had to register
it no matter if someone else laso had one. In fact we have
seen several times that multiple people DID take a defer.

Maybe my WANT to be able to clear a doc faster than the
next telechat is based on some bad experience, where a
DEFER just took too long and so some of my docs got held
up for much more than I think was justified.

And most of the above is based on what I see at
  https://www.ietf.org/IESG/internal/voting-procedures.txt 

If you decide that the ONE DEFER button is enough. I can
live by that and we can see how well it works first.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: donderdag 28 augustus 2003 18:47
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Iesg (E-mail)
> Cc: Michael Lee (E-mail); Barbara Fuller (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Taking a DEFER on a ballot
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> everything you say is consistent with the currently implemented DEFER 
> button, except this one:
> 
> --On 27. august 2003 16:21 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 
> <bwijnen@lucent.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 4. One or more DEFERs on a document will cause the document
> >    to automatically show up on the next telechat agenda,
> >    unless all DEFERs change to a vote other than DISCUSS
> >    and there are enough votes to approve the document.
> 
> I've been arguing for some time that the situation where:
> 
> - AD X requests a DEFER *before* the telechat, so that 
> everyone knows it 
> will be deferred, so no real discussion occurs
> - AD Y is "snowed under", and thinks problems are unlikely, 
> so doesn't take 
> out his own DEFER, but think he'll get back to it next week
> - AD X clears her DEFER
> - Document passes because of enough votes
> - AD Y is surprised
> 
> is NOT a good one, and that the system should not make this easy.
> 
> It should, of course, be allowed if it really is an 
> "emergency hurry-upper" 
> - but that's why we decided many moons ago to allow the state 
> to be set by 
> hand, even when the state jump isn't programmed into the 
> state machine.
> 
> If this isn't something we want to do commonly, I think the added 
> complexity of the "DEFER column" on the ballot is Just Not Right.
> 
> The granting of defer power to the Chair can easily be handed 
> by the Chair 
> (or the secretariat under the Chair's instruction) changing 
> the date of the 
> telechat on the document. No need for special code, I think.
> 
>                             Harald
> 
> 
> 
>