> > Folks, > > I am increasingly concerned about efficiency in the IETF, given the loads everyone is carrying. One source of inefficiency is having someone create work for others, without having already done enough of their own work. > [...] A few years ago I proposed http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kolkman-appeal-support Abstract RFC 2026 outlines the procedure for appealing decisions or process failures to the IESG and the IAB. This document describes how an appellant should first gain support for filing their appeal before an appeal is being considered. I just went back to thread starting at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg43976.html to convince me that dropping the document at that time was done based on lack of support. It seems to me that at the time there were to many difficult and contentious details that it was not really worth the effort to prioritize on that document. While the gist of the discussion went in the direction to suggest the IAB and IESG that appeals could be returned with a stamp "no merit". Ted's mail triggered the thought that appeal support could also go another way. If there are people who think that an appeal is important they can help the appellant to create a concise and direct appeal. -- Olaf (no hats) PS Note the subject change. I am not talking about a (this) specific appeal. ________________________________________________________ Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf