I agree with Sam that it might be a sensible modification of the existing
process.
However, it is irrelevant to the current discussion since the IESG is not at
current permitted to make such a statement.
The main argument against modification might well be the very fact that it
would allow
From RFC 2026
At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies
responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define
the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making
their decision.
Suggest that before anyone suggests modifying process they
To the IESG:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 05:43:12PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf
I have read the document, though I cheerfully concede that some of the
text eludes my understanding. I was
On 3/11/2010 9:16 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
As near as I can
tell, that says that it is _not_ an appeal of the document set itself.
Let us consider careful this sentence.
Andrew expended substantial time an energy to read and analyze the appel. For
all that, he is still left having to
Andrew,
Thankyou for spending time on this.
On 2010-03-12 06:16, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
It is instead an appeal that the documents were not published with
disclaimers attached.
Interesting. Since we're being legalistic, all IETF documents carry
the standard disclaimer (by reference in
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could be
expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus document. In fact,
doing so would probably be a process violation in itself.
Well, ok, and yes it probably
Andrew == Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com writes:
Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could
be expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus
document. In fact, doing so
I agree with Sam, for cases which would otherwise result in an
endless DISCUSS - although normally I'd expect the argument
to be complex enough that a separate RFC would be needed to
explain the dissent.
Brian
On 2010-03-12 09:58, Sam Hartman wrote:
Andrew == Andrew Sullivan
