On 10/22/06, David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This basically allows the IESG to do whatever it pleases without
requiring community input. And because of this, it will also be hard
to appeal any decisions made this way as this draft supports the idea
that the IESG has the authority to do
David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:14:41PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
If we ever do have ADs interested in restoring the rights, I quite
specifically do _not_ want to repeat the denial-of-service attack on
this list.
What denial-of service attack are you
Sam Hartman writes:
david filed the following discuss on Brian's draft to rescind 3683.
David is concerned that the IETF consensus is not strong enough to
approve this draft.
We definitely could use your feedback on this issue.
I am already on record as opposing the adoption of an earlier
Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Hartman writes:
David filed the following discuss on Brian's draft to rescind 3683.
David is concerned that the IETF consensus is not strong enough to
approve this draft.
We definitely could use your feedback on this issue.
I am already on record
John,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:14:41PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC 3683 defines _two_ different types of Posting Rights Actions
(PR-Actions): Ones to rescind posting rights and ones to _restore_
previously rescinded rights...
Indeed. Both,
After re-read Brian's draft, RFC 3683, RFC 3934, and the relevant
portions of RFC2418
I support the IESG/ADs ability to make longer than 30-day suspensions
and to engage in alternate methods of mailing list control, as
described in 2418.
I agree that the IESG having only the option of 1 year
Joel == Joel M Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joel After re-read Brian's draft, RFC 3683, RFC 3934, and the
Joel relevant portions of RFC2418 I support the IESG/ADs ability
Joel to make longer than 30-day suspensions and to engage in
Joel alternate methods of mailing list
