> On Sep 12, 2025, at 05:51, D. J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Those messages still seem to be secret
Incorrect. The entire appeal message was included verbatim in my response. > but you say that the second > message called the outcome here a "process violation". As the message was a private message, and not an appeal, it does not require to be shared with you or the list. If Tim wishes to do so, he can share it. > Leaving the status unclear is confusing, error-prone, and abuse-prone. The process played out itself by people writing an appeal, and me processing that appeal. So the RFC defined process worked. > It seems that the second type of objection was filed No need for speculation as the full message was included in my appeal response. > , leading to the AD > reversing adoption. Maybe this won't be appealed; maybe it'll survive > appeal; but in any case it does nothing to acknowledge or correct the > problem of WG chairs not feeling obliged to state decisions clearly. As I stated, I believe the chairs worked correctly under 2418 and 7282. In fact, I praised the chairs for their attempts at consensus building of a divided WG. >>> For transparency, please carry out all discussion of this matter on the >>> relevant public mailing list ([email protected]), including, but not limited >>> to, any discussions of this matter among IESG members, IAB members, >>> agents of IETF Administration LLC, etc. >> Please stop trying to dictate how people should behave. > > Writing "For transparency, please ..." is not dictating anything (even > when there are external constraints on point). It's simply a request, in > this case a request for transparency. It is repetitive and either stating what is in RFCs already or attempting to modify the process dictated by RFCs. Either interpretation still makes its repetition unwanted and off-topic. It does no good if all participants start adding their own boilerplate to all messages. Hence my request as an AD for you to stop doing this. >> The WG Chairs are under no obligation to respond to every question >> asked > > The WG chairs were obliged to make the status clear in the first place, > even without a question. I feel confident they understand what could have been done better. Another strongly worded email from a participant is not necessary. I consider the matter closed. > Antitrust law obliges standards-development > organizations to provide due process. Any alleged criminal behaviour of individuals within the IETF should be addressed to [email protected]. Messages alluding to criminal behaviour are not appropriate for this list. Please refrain from repeating these here. > [ chairs have "wide discretion" ] >> Which I interpret to mean that your question on whether the statement >> has WG consensus is not relevant. > > The "wide discretion" quote does not override the RFC 2418 rule that > "Working groups make decisions through a 'rough consensus' process". RFC 7282 Section 4 “Humming should be the start of a conversation, not the end”. > It also doesn't override the requirements in antitrust law. Contact [email protected] for alleged criminal behaviour in the IETF. It is not appropriate for the TLS mailing list. Please refrain from alluding to criminal behaviour on this list. > How do you claim I'm misrepresenting it? > > Here's the start of Section 8 of RFC 2026: "Each of the organizations > involved in the development and approval of Internet Standards shall > publicly announce, and shall maintain a publicly accessible record of, > every activity in which it engages, to the extent that the activity > represents the prosecution of any part of the Internet Standards > Process." > > The section continues with more specific requirements, such as "The > formal record of an organization's standards-related activity shall > include at least the following: ... complete and accurate minutes of > meetings; the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; > and all written contributions from participants that pertain to the > organization's standards-related activity". Because we comply with the above stated RFC text. > This obliges IESG---you, for example, in your AD role---to publish the > email messages that led to your instructing the WG chairs "to mark the > document as Not Adopted". Which I did, by including the entire appeal message in my posting under the astute heading of “Received Appeal text”. I consider this matter closed. Paul
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
