I don't think there was one member of this list who needed to read this IESG announcement to know what they would decide. I don't think that speaks much for the integrity of the decision.
nick
-------------- Original message --------------
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
> The IESG has received a request (see
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/morfin-appeal-ietf-languages-list.txt)
> from JFC Morfin to overturn the suspension of his posting privileges to the
> ietf-languages mailing list. Since this appeal is similar in one critical aspect
> to a previous appeal overturned by the IAB for the lack of IESG explanation,
> this appeal will describe in more detail the process by which the IESG reached
> its conclusion.
>
> The IETF's procedures are aimed at a fundamental goal of making the
> standards process work, but they will never cover every possible
> circumstance. Where there is no enumerated procedure, the traditional
> practice of the IETF and the reasonable application of good sense
> is expected for managing situations. If that were not permitted, the
> IETF would grind to a halt in process discussions.
>
> There is no enumerated procedure at this point for managing non-WG mailing
> lists. That may change in the future, but until it does list managers must
> be guided by traditional IETF practice and by their responsibility to
> manage the lists in the interest of the IETF's fundamental goals.
> In this instance, Harald Alvestrand set out a process by which he would
> manage the ietf-languages list. He did so publicly, in advance of the
> application of that process, and by pointing to a documented process
> which had achieved IETF consensus as a model.
>
> The IESG believes that this was a reasonable way to achieve the
> goals of following the traditional practice of the IETF and judging
> what actions would be considered reasonable by the community.
>
> After reviewing the list traffic leading up to this suspension, the
> IESG upholds the suspension of J-F. C. Morfin from the IETF languages list, as
> we concur with the judgement of its list manager.
>
> To clarify two additional points raised by this appeal, the IESG
> confirms that the list ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx and the
> ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are equivalent, as
> one is simply a redirect of the other. This mailing list practice
> does not affect the role the list plays in the IETF. We also confirm that the
> IETF language reviewer remains Michael Everson.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf