Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list, a host of people declaring themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all for an "informal" request for a PR-Action ? That would all presumably have to be repeated under a Last Call ? Which will occur at some point (presumably at least one IESG meeting, or at a minimum 2 weeks) after a formal request ? At this rate, we'll be wasting list bandwidth on this until Christmas.
I would suggest that, as Harald posted his "intent to file" message back on August 29th, OVER one month ago, there has been enough debate, and Harald should either file or publicly announce that he is not going to file. In other words (to quote our Chair from another context), I would ask for a guillotine on this matter. Regards Marshall On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:40:52 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, let's be clear about procedure here. > > If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683, > we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen > to the responses. > > But as of now, we have not received such a request in > the case of JFC Morfin. > > In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet in this > case. > > Brian > > Bill Manning wrote: > > > > i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone. > > > > --bill > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
