http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here. On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many > succeed? > > If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing > one... > > (On the other hand, that might simply be because 97% of the appeals are > written by loons. Statistics can't tell us everything.) > > Lloyd Wood > http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On > Behalf Of The IESG [[email protected]] > Sent: 02 July 2013 23:24 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding > draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats > > The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19, > 2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of > draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats: > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt > > This is a dispute about a matter in a working group. The same matter has > previously been raised with the working group chairs and responsible > Area Director, as specified in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1. > > Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial > discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the > primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific > rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and > IPR. > > After reviewing the appeal, including the associated list discussion and > draft revisions, the IESG concludes that the authors made a reasonable > editorial choice that was well within their discretion and that none of > the messages at issue fall under the required acknowledgment rules of > RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 and RFC 5378 Sections 5.6a and 1c. The IESG > finds that the chairs and responsible AD handled complaints about the > matter appropriately.
