On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:20 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. Is that something happening at this IESG retreat? > 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 > -- > -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740
