On 3/27/14, 4:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote: >> >> The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just >> say No."
responsible AD here. I take the IETF LC input with the gravitas that's appropriate. the IESG review occurs after the LC. > I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document > until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I > disagree with that claim. But if it is true, then we might as well > give up. If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections) > to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the > WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must. > > Best regards, > > A >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
