It is important to do so in ways that ensure that the insurance criteria are not breached. Returning the document is not covered in the rules. But there seems to be no reason that the IESG could not ask someone (e.g. Ted Hardie who has already done so) to write up a concise summary. On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf