Nico,
What is the definition of a "frivolous" petition? Just curious how that would work...
Cheers,
Andy
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:20 PM Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:58:44PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > Would the decision of an Area Director/IESG not to sponsor the
> > draft be considered as behaviour that adversely affect the
> > standardization process?
>
> No, because the concern seems to be about deciding the right venue
> where *more input* can be put into the document.
+1. AD decisions to not sponsor a draft are really not the sort of
decisions that can be appealed. You've got two ADs per-area, if you
can't get either of them, or any of the others, to sponsor your draft,
then maybe you're doing things wrong. A BoF/WG seems like a fine
starting point.
I'd also like to second EKR's proposal that the IAB and IESG should get
a first crack at policing themselves. That wouldn't exclude a proper
recall mechanism that can be initiated outside the IAB/IESG, but maybe
we wouldn't need to make that mechanism too easy to start. Lastly, a
mechanism for quickly dealing with frivolous petitions can make it
tolerable to make starting a recall process too easy.
Nico
--
