I think that the text on appeals and recalls in draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-03.txt
is necessary and sufficient. There is a way to get decisions reviewed
and a way to get IAOC members fired. I don't want any more than that,
and I don't want the IAD formally subject to complaints except via
his or her
Hi Spencer -
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a really
*strong* stance on protecting people from each other because
people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read your
note, the IESG will
John == John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JohnThe whole idea here, I thought, was to set up a support
John structure which would just work -- so that it could be
John invisible to the IESG and never need to be discussed by
John that group. (The problem, I thought, was
--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 21:51 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I've probably seen enough versions of enough issues that I'm
more than a little spaced out.. but I think your proposal
looks very much like the in-draft version of the appeals
--On torsdag, desember 23, 2004 04:14:58 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 21:51 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I've probably seen enough versions of enough issues that I'm
more than a little spaced out.. but I
--On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 10:22 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
...
I like all of those properties, and it should be a small
twist of language (starting from the text in the draft, not
the most recent suggestion) to make it come out that way.
But I'm
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a really
*strong* stance on protecting people from each other because
people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read your
note, the IESG will micromanage and the IASA/IAD will order
bagels flown in daily from New York.
--On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 09:42 -0800 Carl Malamud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a
really *strong* stance on protecting people from each other
because people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read
your note,
Hi John -
(i) the IESG, or the IESG's leadership, is likely to micromanage
because it has tended to micromanage, or try to do so, many of
the things it has touched in the last several years -- the
secretariat, the content of various documents down to the
editorial level, the RFC Editor, and
--On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 13:31 -0800 Carl Malamud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John -
(i) the IESG, or the IESG's leadership, is likely to
micromanage because it has tended to micromanage, or try to
do so, many of the things it has touched in the last several
years -- the
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 09:42 -0800 Carl Malamud
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a
really *strong* stance on protecting people from each
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 13:31 -0800 Carl Malamud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[John Klensin wrote:]
(i) the IESG, or the IESG's leadership, is likely to
micromanage because it has tended to micromanage, or try to
do so, many of the things it has
On 23 dec 2004, at 20.07, John Leslie wrote:
I'm not so much worried about IESG actually _appealing_ the
decision on where to get bagels as I am about language which seems
to encourage anyone who doesn't like the bagels to _ask_ the IESG
to appeal it.
I don't understand why it is that the IESG
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a really
*strong* stance on protecting people from each other because
people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read your
note, the IESG will micromanage and the IASA/IAD will order
bagels flown in daily from New York.
Mostly ok with me.
On 22 dec 2004, at 10.21, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Suggested resolution:
1) Make a separate section for the appeals stuff in 3.4 (for clarity),
so that this becomes section 3.5
2) Change the section to read:
If someone believes that the IAOC has made a decision that is
Harald,
Another dissenting view...
Unless we modify the suggested text to deal with all sorts of
cases that we probably can't predict and that would make things
quite complicated, I don't see this working as intended. The
sorts of cases I'm concerned about include not only information
given the
John,
I've probably seen enough versions of enough issues that I'm more than a
little spaced out.. but I think your proposal looks very much like the
in-draft version of the appeals procedure, with three differences:
- Not limited to procedure, and not limited to the IAOC
- Abandoning the
John's concern and suggested improvements work for me.
FWIW, I am more comfortable with 2026-style appeals when we're talking
about publishing a protocol specification than I am when we're talking
about (for example) contracting for an IETF meeting location. The
short-term downside of not
I think your proposed three changes are a significant improvement over
the current text. As I've said, I am willing to live with the current
text but do not consider it ideal.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
