>> What's abundantly clear is that IESG should not be making such decisions >> unilaterally. > Of course. But the pathway there is clear enough - either propose a significant recharter of shmoo or a BOF. Doing it > by an iterative process of IESG Statements and formal appeals does not seem optimal to me. Looking at Lars's posting [1], it seems the timeline was An IESG statement was published An appeal was raised The IESG finished off a revision of the first statement and published it An object was raised on the revised statement I would like to know if Ted and Alan find this a satisfactory resolution to their initial appeal. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0qbVrHQzQTynERlzK9q8_mbhnTo/
