Ted, Sam,
I also agree with your points, and yes, even personnel decisions
by AD can be appealed. The appeals process is not intended to
merely inspect whether formal right to perform an action existed;
such appeals would be very easily decided. In most cases, an
appeal involves an action which is
Russ Housley wrote:
I'd like to know if this is a topic of concern to people.
I had not realized that IESG statements bound future IESGs. I find that
in itself disturbing.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/li
At 3:49 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>>As a concrete suggestion:
>>
>>"The IESG re-affirms that its reading of RFC 2026 is that any action made by
>>an Area
>>Director or the IESG may by made the subject of the conflict resolution
>>mechanisms
>>set out in Section 6.5 of RFC 2026. Th
Ted:
To begin with, I want to say that I agree with your perception of the
appeal process. It is an important conflict resolution tool.
The first thing that was done in the drafting of the appeal response
was to list each of the claims in the appeal. That is why the
introduction lists them
At 1:16 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote:
>Ted:
>
>With great respect, I must disagree. The appeal says: "It is the position of
>the appellants that this removal violates the IETF process by which working
>groups are governed." This say to me that the appellants believe that Cullen
>Jennin
Ted:
With great respect, I must disagree. The appeal says: "It is the
position of the appellants that this removal violates the IETF
process by which working groups are governed." This say to me that
the appellants believe that Cullen Jennings violated IETF process by
replacing the GEOPRIV
Ted, speaking as an individual.
I completely agree that personnel decisions of ADs should be able to
be appealed. I actually considered proposing text modifications to
make it clear that there might be circumstances where it would be
appropriate for the IESG to resolve the conflict.
I and I s
I believe this response (I hope inadvertently) appears to remove a valuable
principle by which the IESG acted on appeals.
I urge the IESG to reconsider the formulation of its response to the appeal
to clarify the issues raised below.
At 2:01 PM -0400 9/20/07, The
