Hi John, apologies for the delay in responding. On 2022-10-7, at 1:02, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Is it possible to support the PR-action as described in the Last > Call without endorsing all of the IESG's statement or the > appropriateness of some of the examples? I believe so. > If so, how should that > be done in a way in which the concerns do not get lost? You would say so in your response to the last call. > In > particular, if the IESG concludes that community consensus > favors moving forward with the action itself, but that there is > at least a significant minority (enough to make the consensus > very rough) who are concerned about the IESG's reasoning, will > that be reflected in whatever final statement the IESG makes on > the matter and about its decision? The last call is on the specific PR action outlined in the last call email, with an explanation of why the IESG believes a PR action is warranted in this case, which is fundamentally based around the way in which Dan is choosing to express himself, and his unwillingness to change his ways. (And not that he is expressing an "unpopular opinion".) The IESG will review the received feedback to gauge whether there is, or is not, support for the PR action that is proposed. Specifically: should the procedures of BCP 83 be applied, revoking Dan Harkins’ posting rights to admin-discuss, gendispatch, ietf, and terminology, and granting maintainers of other IETF mailing lists the discretion to also remove posting rights? Once the feedback period ends, the IESG will make a decision that takes the received feedback into account. We intend to summarize the received feedback when we decide to go ahead with or abandon the action. This would include feedback that supports the PR action but disagrees with (some of) the IESG's rationale for it. > And, fwiw, if, for some of us including myself, endorsing the > PR-action will be taken as an endorsement of the current IESG > statement and the methods and reasons for getting to this point, > then it might feel that the endorsement/ approval is too > expensive in terms of, e.g., the precedents that might be set. An "IESG statement" is a specific, different thing (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/), and the IESG has not made a statement related to the proposed PR action. I believe with "IESG statement" you may mean the rationale for the proposed PR action included in the last call email. People can support the PR action without agreeing with the reasoning (in whole or in part) provided, or with how that reasoning was expressed. People are welcome to explain their own reasoning for supporting or opposing the PR action, but in the end the question for the IESG is simply one of whether to approve the PR action, or not. Support for the PR action doesn’t necessarily imply endorsement of all the reasoning presented in the last call announcement. I hope this provides some clarity, also to others who have raised related questions on this thread. Thanks, Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
