| Hi Tim,
The whole IESG discussed your appeal and our response to it, and we all stand behind it. As a general matter, the IESG does not vote (on anything).
Best, Alissa Cooper IETF Chair
If you have a look at my appeal it very clearly states I am basing it on RFC 2026 Section 6.5.2 (Process Failures). Now if you have not read all ten sentences of it you would have missed the one that says "
If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
action is needed. "
Why is this important? Because if the whole IESG was supposed to re-examine things
and only three did then that opens the door for another appeal (what a waste)
In an email exchange this morning with Murray (below) he tells me that there isn't really any vote
and refused to tell me how many people total were involved in the final decision.
I am noticing a trend of "we make the rules but we don't really follow them"
****
I can tell you that in terms of process, the discussion was open to all members of the IESG. However, the actual details of the IESG's deliberations about appeals are not public.
-MSK
Was it all the members of the IESG?
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/members/
On July 28, 2020 at 11:34 AM "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, it was not just me and Barry.
-MSK
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:30 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <
tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ok,
So was it just you and Barry?
On July 28, 2020 at 11:23 AM "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The process is about the same as is done in working groups to develop a document. A member of the IESG proposed a response, and various members then contributed edits or commentary, which were discussed and the text modified until all input was addressed. Consensus was finally declared, and the result was posted.
The IESG and its membership are described here:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
-MSK
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:19 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <
tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Forgive me Murray...
but what is a consensus output?
And how many total made that consensus output?
On July 28, 2020 at 11:13 AM "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Timothy,
The appeal response posted this morning is the consensus output of the IESG. There was no vote.
If you disagree with the outcome or how it was reached, you have the option to appeal further to the Internet Architecture Board.
-MSK
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:58 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <
tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Murray,
Would you please send me a copy of the votes for and against. Thank you.
Tim
On July 16, 2020 at 7:47 PM "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Received, thank you. This is helpful.
-MSK
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:52 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <
tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Murray,
I have attached individual files for each claim you requested (14,15,18).
Thank you for being direct and informative.
Tim
|
