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
Folks,
I am increasingly concerned about efficiency in the IETF, given the loads
everyone is carrying. One source of inefficiency is having someone create
work for others, without having already done enough of their own work.
[...]
A few years ago I proposed
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800,
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I approve and I also believe that, giving the
On 3/11/10 9:24 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800,
Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and
At 14:43 10-03-10, Russ Housley wrote:
The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
[snip]
The IESG plans address this appeal in the next few weeks, and the IESG
solicits comments on this appeal from the community. Please send
I will not be able to reply to off-list comments
It is important to do so in ways that ensure that the insurance
criteria are not breached.
Returning the document is not covered in the rules. But there seems to
be no reason that the IESG could not ask someone (e.g. Ted Hardie who
has already done so) to write up a concise summary.
On Wed,
Our process may be complicated, but a deviation from due process
that requires 145 pages of description is simply not possible.
We have specific rules in RFC 2026 and RFC 2418 (and various updates)
and it should be possible to describe specific alleged deviations
from those rules in a page or
On 2010-03-11 00:42 Dave CROCKER said:
An appeal needs to state its concerns and requirements clearly and concisely.
That might include masses of reference material, but the appeal statement,
itself, needs to be short and to the point.
When an appeal is lodged that fails these basic
On 03/11/2010 04:43 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
On 2010-03-11 00:42 Dave CROCKER said:
An appeal needs to state its concerns and requirements clearly and
concisely.
That might include masses of reference material, but the appeal statement,
itself, needs to be short and to the point.
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
The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf
JFC Morfin included these comments in the cover note:
Basically this appeal documents that IDNA2008 enlight capacities
and principles that are built in the Internet technology but that
Hi Russ,
The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer.
Attempting to navigate
this, I see points of appeal, which has the following text:
This is why this appeal does not concern the IDNA 2008 document set,
as approved by the IESG, which is now of prime stable importance when
Ted:
There is an IESG Telechat tomorrow with 22 documents on it. Outgoing
ADs are trying to clear as much work as possible for the incoming ADs.
So, frankly, I've been focused on these 22 documents, and I will not be
able to read the 140+ page appeal until the IESG Telechat is over.
Thanks for
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Ted:
There is an IESG Telechat tomorrow with 22 documents on it. Â Outgoing
ADs are trying to clear as much work as possible for the incoming ADs.
So, frankly, I've been focused on these 22 documents, and I will not be
On 3/10/2010 3:20 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Russ,
The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer.
Attempting to navigate
this, I see points of appeal, which has the following text:
...
Trying to combine this with the cover page text as best I can, this
appeal seems to request
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully support such an approach (and did propose the same strategy to the
IESG while I was a
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully support such an approach (and did propose the
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully support such an approach (and did propose
I do not believe the IESG is under any obligation to spend its
precious time digesting such a mass of text to discern any actual
grounds for appeal.
Legal systems have rules about vexatious litigants, people who
repeatedly file meritless actions that waste an unreasonable amount of
time and
+1
Bert
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully
26 matches
Mail list logo
