Harald,
Indeed, the IAB response concludes that the IESG has not
given sufficient justification for its decision in
Mr. Morfin's appeal, and that decision has been annulled.
The IAB's role here is one of review (in the appeal), not
directing the actions of IETF process.
If you require
' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500
Bernard,
The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that
replacement
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bernard Aboba
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Speaking for myself --
As noted in the appeal, quite a few
On 4 January 2006, the IAB received an appeal from Jefsey Morfin
appealing the IESG decision to uphold the suspension of his
posting rights to the ietf-languages list. According to the
procedures in Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026, the IAB has reviewed the
situation and issues the following response.
So, a clarification request:
Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John Klensin has
made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
better handled by operational procedures made available for
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leslie The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community
Leslie commented on published operational procedures should not
Leslie be at odds with our general or specific process documents,
Leslie or else that seems to suggest
Sam,
One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not
BCP upon BCP upon BCP.
The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented
on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
to suggest the
the
applicability and overlap of the existing documents is already somewhat
unclear.
From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006
: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
--
-- My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive
-- as banning, it is
-- very important to have clear, well documented procedures
-- dictating the
-- process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation
-- of more documents
-- may
IAB,
Thank you for the processing of this request.
However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about
what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the
ietf-languages list.
The IAB seems to have decided that it's the IESG that has to decide this;
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
Thank you for the processing of this request.
However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about
what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the
ietf-languages list.
The IAB seems to have decided that it's the
I thank the IAB for the processing of my request. I acknowledge its decision.
The IAB has decided not to discuss the motives of the contention, but
the use of RFC 3934 to legitimate a ban decision (also used in the
three other cases). Harald Alvestrand indicated the reasons of this
use: if
12 matches
Mail list logo
