> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will > > work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have > > a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature. > I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from a noble impulse, but I > think it's a temptation that should be avoided. Agreed. > If we get to the point where the IESG, the RFC Editor, and the IAB > can't among them work out a sensible compromise (because common sense > has failed), then we have much bigger problems than getting things > published on the Independent Submissions track. > Maybe I watched too much _Brazil_ on the weekend, but this all seems > to me to be the sort of arrangement that can only lead to harm. Given > the number of iterations the draft has been through, and the volume of > mail it has attracted, I expect the current form is likely as close to > good as it will get (since we still have a fail safe: the IAB can put > a pox on all the houses). But I don't believe solving a problem we > don't actually have is a good idea. Exactly my thinking on the matter. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf