--On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 21:53 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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 My understanding/recollection is that a statement was published even before the first (2023-01-27) one in that sequence, that problems were identified with it, and the January version then replaced it. And, this month, the (2nd) revised statement was issued, I objected/appealed, and the response to Ted and Alan appeared only after that. I do not assume any cause and effect relationship between the last two but, had the response to them --and the explanation of this version being mostly finished some time ago, etc.-- appeared before the statement, I probably would have waited to hear from them before deciding whether this week's appeal was needed. > I would like to know if Ted and Alan find this a satisfactory > resolution to their initial appeal. Me too. But, coming back to Brian's comment above, it seems to me that even the problems with the statement- appeal- statement- appeal -... cycle could be significantly mitigated by a summary of the objections and suggestions (whether by appeal or some less formal comments) and how they responded to each. Not a substitute for what I'd consider a real community process, but far better than doing things by proclamation of next statements without any indication of what the changes were and why. best, john > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0qbVrHQzQTynERlzK9q > 8_mbhnTo/ >
