> No, that's not what I said. I said that the proto shepherd is > responsible for sending the comment to the appropriate place. As I said, that's been standard practise forever. It's been done by the cognizant AD and proto is proposing it be done by someone else, but the task is not changed. >If the > add holding the discuss wants to send it to the mailing listthat's > fine. If the working group wants to send mail to the AD that's fine > too. More than one of us has tried to describe the nature of the problem and its solution yet we seem not to be heard. Let me try the simplest summary possible: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that group. Directly. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf