Dear IESG,
At 06:11 20-02-2014, Ralph Droms wrote:
My concern is that we not establish some de facto extension to our
processes by labeling this particular example of complaint
resolution as a formal appeal.
I share the concern that the IESG will establish the case at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86168.html as a
extension to the processes if it is labelled as a formal appeal.
There was the following comment from Hadriel Kaplan during the Last
Call ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81414.html ):
"I think publishing it as Proposed Standard would be ok if there
wasn't strong disagreement, but it appears there is strong
disagreement, including on how it came to be."
It was clear to the IESG that there appeared to be strong
disagreement. I'll highlight the following from Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026:
"The IESG is the principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it
is the IESG that is charged with ensuring that the required procedures
have been followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards
action have been met."
I have the following question:
Is it the responsibility of the IESG to respond to an appeal
about a process
issue once a draft has gone through an IETF Last Call?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy