My head is spinning.
Not a good sign given that you wrote the draft in question...
The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418 and adds the extra powers
created by 3934.
Yes, I think that's a fair statement of the intent and pretty close
to the specifics as well - as long as you ignore 3683.
I
For the record, I'm personally against rescinding 3683 at this time.
I will note that the one actually setting up the PR-ACTION was quite
disruptive (and I haven't been on the IESG so I haven't felt their
pain, I know), once the PR-ACTION *has* been set up, the amount of
effort to deal with someone
My head is spinning.
The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418 and adds the extra powers
created by 3934. I've been told by the author of 3934 that removing
the powers created by 2418 was not intended (even though there is
no other way to read the words in 3934). So I think the question on
the tabl
> It seems to me that part of the source of your disconnect is
> that not only has 3683 been taken, intentionally or otherwise,
> as modifying and restricting 2418, but 3934, intentionally or
> otherwise, restricted the provisions of 2418 by (apparently)
> banning any suspension longer than 30 days
--On Wednesday, 25 October, 2006 20:27 +0700 Robert Elz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date:Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:42:38 +0200
> From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> |
> | > | 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2
Date:Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:42:38 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| > | 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
| > | the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer t
| 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
| the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than
| 30 days and to approve alternative methods of mailing list control
| as originally documented in RFC 2418?
The proposal, as a general thing, yes,
