> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
> > work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
> > a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature.
> I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from
>If we get to the point where the IESG, the RFC Editor, and the IAB
>can't among them work out a sensible compromise (because common sense
>has failed), then we have much bigger problems than getting things
>published on the Independent Submissions track.
+1
We're software and network guys (and g
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
> work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
> a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature.
I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from a noble im
On 2009-11-18 11:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> So I'd find it really useful to know what problem this dispute
> resolution mechanism is actually supposed to solve.
Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
a clear path for
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:47:44PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> I wish that that IESG (or some few of its members; I don't know)
> were not insisting on even that much, but there seem to be
> nothing that can be done about it without the loss of much more
> time (remember that
