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