On 3/11/2010 9:16 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
As near as I can
tell, that says that it is _not_ an appeal of the document set itself.
Let us consider careful this sentence.
Andrew expended substantial time an energy to read and analyze the appel. For
all that, he is still left having to make guesses about the core aspects of the
appeal's nature. Andrew has good command of English and is a diligent guy, so
we cannot dismiss the exercise having been beyond his capabilities or as due to
his having been sloppy.
Again, I will contend that this is not a reasonable burden for IETF management,
or the IETF community. It must be the work of an appellant to place before the
IETF an appeal that is clear and concise.
That's not an onerous burden.
d/
ps. Based on the follow-up postings, my note here might be viewed as what sales
folk call "selling past the sale", but I thought that Andrew's work provided
remarkable substantiation of the problem that it was worth explicitly noting it
for the record.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
