Murray, you're confused. I was speaking of the fact that when I asked you how many people were involved in the decision you would not tell me. Then Alissa says the whole IESG discussed your appeal. You could have easily told me the same thing but didn't.
(email below again)
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
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:37 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <
tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
