>>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean@av8.net> writes:

Dean> The management issue was discussed. The IESG approved an
Dean> RFC 3683 PR-action for Dean Anderson. Sam Hartman and
Dean> Margaret Wasserman voted against this action, and Alex Zinin
Dean> abstained.

Dean> This is an incomplete vote record on its face. It does not
Dean> show who voted "No Objection", or who voted "Discuss". It
Dean> doesn't even show who voted "Yes". So there is no way to
Dean> tell if the IESG rules were followed by Carpenter in
Dean> tallying the outcome correctly. If A.D's were not given the
Dean> usual options for an evaluation ballot, (as one might
Dean> suspect from your unusual, ad-hoc procedure) then the "usual
Dean> consensus based process" was not followed.

Hi. Please consider this an informal response in the interest of
providing clarity. I make no statement on whether the IESG followed a
reasonable process at this time.

The procedure was an override vote (I don't have a URL handy, but the
ID tracker ballots do include a description at the bottom of the page
describing what IESG votes mean).
In such a vote, the following votes are allowed:

* yes
* no
* abstain
* recuse

Margaret and I voted no; Alex abstained;everyone else voted yes.