John C Klensin wrote: [DRP excl. last calls] > in general, if an AD, or the IESG, as a whole, is asked to > issue a Last Call and declines to do so, that decision > should be subject to appeal. And, if the IESG wants to see > that "in general" narrowed --as I think it should be-- then > they should be generating, or convincing someone else to > generate-- a clear statement about the conditions under which > Last Calls will and will not be issued and get community > consensus behind that statement. Yes, they need something against bogus (or malicious) last call requests. That something would have the same DoS protection as the proposed 'dispute resolution process'. [active participants for the recall procedure] > it is hard to identify them in a clear way [...] > IAB and IESG members were excluded as an unintended side- > effect. Maybe - if you intend to revive that draft - you could add all (co-) authors of "n" or more standards track documents, for an "n" covering all past and present IAB and IESG members. [duel draft] > the Nomcom Chair could wait a week before doing anything, > then ask the Chair if he or she was still serious and notify > the relevant IESG member to see if any other action was > likely to be forthcoming before presenting the question to > the Nomcom. Is that what you had in mind? Yes, maybe as explicit right. If the IETF or IESG Chair added Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx or similar it's hopeless, no further delay, they have to shoot it out. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf