This looks fine to me.
Margaret
At 11:33 AM +0100 1/31/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing
out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously
Wrong.
I've tuned the text below to:
- Removed the para about metrics.
Harald,
I still think this is a bad model, but I'm clearly (at least
among those who are speaking up) in the minority on that. With
one correction, and a last quibble, I think it is now at least
consistent enough that, if it causes problems, we can get to the
substance of them and fix it rather
Howdy,
I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the
fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but
I can live with that.
WRT this:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
- Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section.
Could go under IAD responsibilities.
--On Monday, 31 January, 2005 14:00 -0500 Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howdy,
I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the
fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but
I can live with that.
WRT this:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
-
Howdy,
I can't entirely agree with the argumentation, in part
because (and again this goes back to how the text first
appeared) metrics are useful to establish the state of
the system, whether to critique the state or simply
understand it. Appeal is only one form of critique.
That said -- I'm not
From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads:
In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the
IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or
IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether
appropriate
--On tirsdag, februar 01, 2005 01:04:39 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads:
In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of
the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs
