Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/13/2008 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> I note that, while the present situation and 2821bis constitute
> particularly glaring examples of these misplaced priorities and
> abuses, none of the issues above is unique to 2821bis.  They
> are really about how the IESG manages and expresses its
> authority and discretion.  
> 

John,

I applaud your decision to appeal an IESG DISCUSS (I have read far 
enough to understand that the basis of the appeal was consensus among 
folks who are closely following this matter and chose to comment on the 
matter of whether to file an appeal).

I do not have a strong opinion about this specific case (I may even be 
in disagreement with some of the specifics stated in the appeal), but I 
believe it is necessary for the community to exercise their right to 
appeal to let the IESG know that their predisposition to use DISCUSS for 
imposing personal preferences, biases or undocumented norms is 
inappropriate at best.  I strongly agree with the conclusion that we 
cannot rely on norms supposedly established based on instances of 
compliance under duress (ok, I agree that is a bit of hyperbole).

I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override 
procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.

An appeal crossed my mind a few times in the recent past and I have 
seriously considered appealing a couple of times, but due to time 
constraints chose to pursue the path of least resistance.  I thank you 
for taking the time and energy to appeal.

best regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]