On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:57 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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"
What Murray describes is the conventional practice for an appeal in my experience. This is specifically permitted by 2026 S 6.5.4.
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.
You're of course free to appeal the IESG's response to the IAB.
-Ekr
