John C Klensin wrote: > I commend draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00 as an attempt to > rethink this area. People who are interested in this topic > should probably study it. Yes, it's interesting. With a mandatory "attempt of peaceful settlement", probably a good idea. But I won't subscribe to | Participants in the IETF are deemed to agree to these | procedures in full and final settlement of such disputes. Also interesting is "deciding to issue a Last Call cannot be the subject of the DRP". That misses the point of a decision NOT to issue a last call, e.g. whith the known caee of two mutually exclusive documents. So that clause is no progress in relation to 2026, it's only clearer. Is the "single dispute per topic" okay ? There can be legit cases of different disputes per 'topic', if a 'topic' is the disputed decision. Again the known example, IMO both appeals made sense, and addressed different technical 'topics'. They also got different decisions. Otherwise the draft is clearer than the related points in 2026. > draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (long expired) was intended to > make it easier for the IAB or IESG to identify problems in > their own environment that were linked to individuals and > initiate a community process to solve them. s/community/Nomcom eligible/ - the recall stuff is restricted to the paying members. > draft-klensin-chair-empowerment-01 Apparently not yet available, looking into -00: A duel, good idea. Add an enforced delay, a week or so, it's too easy to do something stupid. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf