> On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it > >> cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise. > > > > I fully support such an approach (and did propose the same strategy to the > > IESG while I was a member of the IESG myself). > I agree. Our process may be complicated, but a deviation from due process > that requires 145 pages of description is simply not possible. We have > specific rules in RFC 2026 and RFC 2418 (and various updates) and it should > be possible to describe specific alleged deviations from those rules in a > page or two. If the appeal merely reflects the fact that the appellant > disagrees with the WG consensus, that is not a ground for appeal. > I do not believe the IESG is under any obligation to spend its precious > time digesting such a mass of text to discern any actual grounds for > appeal. +1 Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf