On 2012-06-10 17:23, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that >> the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG >> (in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF >> consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject >> to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF >> context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated. > > It is not what was intended. > > - There was no mention to me of "ad hoc last calls", so I did not include > them in the draft.
Well, that was presumably an oversight. The IETF always works by a consensus process, afaik. > > - Is there an appeals process for the content of the various web pages > created by the IESG? Yes. For many years there has been a presumption that the appeals process in section 6.5 of RFC 2026 can be applied to *any* IESG action. That being so, I suppose it isn't vital to write it down in every document, but it makes things clearer. Look, I'm not suggesting that either the editor or the IESG will unilaterally put nonsense in the Tao. But the Tao can't be an exception to the general principles of IETF process; that would be ironic, indeed. Brian
