Ned,
I am torn with the proposal. On the one hand, I am sympathetic to DDOS
attacks on the process. On the other hand, I agree with you that
serious contributors need a way to appeal decisions. In particular, I
don't like the need to require support from additional serious members,
and I would
--On Saturday, 14 October, 2006 09:05 +0200 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ned,
I am torn with the proposal. On the one hand, I am
sympathetic to DDOS attacks on the process. On the other
hand, I agree with you that serious contributors need a way to
appeal decisions. In
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Perhaps he could be also convinced to trash his draft. I've
trashed an 3710-obsolete draft (before publication - luck).
9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism of
waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action.
that said, I'd be happy
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
A typical NEA case (taken out of what Cisco's NAC is supposed to be good
for):
- Worker goes on holiday, takes laptop
- New attack is discovered that exploits a newly discovered Windows
vulnerability
- Patch is created, distributed and installed
- NEA posture
John C Klensin wrote:
(1) The supporter procedure/requirement should be
triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
vexatious appellant. People who are entering their
first appeals don't trigger it. People whose last
appeal was successful, even
Michael Thomas wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
...The only folks who need to look for supporters are those who
have appealed before and whose appeals have been rejected as
without merit.
Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
Certainly.
A simplistic created-on-the-spot example:
The IETF
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism
of waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action.
Depends, that 3710-thingy was quite spicy, and all I know about
cancels in the tools.ietf.org archive is that it's possible.
- supporters are
- supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a
secretariat function of the IETF
...difficult, it reminds me of Usenet CSVs. What do you have
in mind, a phone number offered for a verification call ? They
would need to support different plausibility checks wrt WP:SOCK
