Whereas I take issue with the IESG (and IAB) making statements that should be handled (a) through our normative processes and document series; and (b) where there should be certain standards across our document series, and this is one of them. On 5/31/15 3:38 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Saturday, May 30, 2015 18:19 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> More broadly than just to John ... > And my note was a little bit of an over-specific response to > Eliot and David. To be clear, modulo the quibble about putting > one toe into the Acknowledgments swamp, rather than either > keeping it out or jumping in all the way, I think the IESG's > handling of this is, AFAICT, just right and shows sensitivity to > all of the right issues. I am also reasonably confident that, > if the IESG does not assert authority I don't think it has or > should have, the other streams and the RSE can (and likely will) > take care of themselves. I didn't see any signs of such > assertions before in this situation; your note provides > reassurance that I didn't just miss them :-) > > john > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature