In case some people did not see this in the flurry of messages on the
thread, here is Margaret's proposed text with Leslie's edits, incorporated
as best I can.
I also tuned grammar slightly in some places.
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should
include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed,
an explanation of how the decision or action violates the BCPs or
violates -
Harald,
You asked, and I responded, privately about this, but, since you
have identified it as a consensus request, I suppose I should
restate my concerns in public.Unfortunately, some of this
revisits the area in which I think Sam (and others) and I have
agreed to disagree -- I don't know
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should
include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed,
an explanation of how the
--On Friday, 28 January, 2005 11:54 -0500 Dean Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair
and should include a
Since I am responsible for some of this text, let me add
a couple of comments, in-line:
John C Klensin wrote:
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for
the
performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the
IAOC and IAD
--On fredag, januar 28, 2005 12:35:08 -0500 Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on the nature of the review request. Based on the results
of the review,
the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision and/or
to change their
operational guidelines to prevent further
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, John C Klensin wrote:
...believed to violate...
...putatively violates...
...alleged to violate...
and other phrases would, I think, satisfy both Scott's concerns
and yours.
Sure, I'm good with that. How about:
...an explanation of how the decision or action is
--On Friday, 28 January, 2005 12:35 -0500 Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I am responsible for some of this text, let me add
a couple of comments, in-line:
John C Klensin wrote:
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the
I support this text. I prefer the last paragraph be present but this
is not a strong preference.
I'd like to find some way to make it clear to the community that other
forms of comments are appropriate but am happy to agree with Leslie
that the BCP is not the place for that.
At 11:01 AM -0500 1/28/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi John,
Additionally, the IASA should ensure that there are
reported objective
performance metrics for all IETF administrative support
activities.
Back when I was actively doing political science, the belief
that everything could be
I would also prefer that the last paragragh stay in.
a.
On 28 jan 2005, at 14.13, Sam Hartman wrote:
I support this text. I prefer the last paragraph be present but this
is not a strong preference.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
