Hi Spencer,
At 02:49 AM 24-05-2019, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
This is actually written down in more detail in
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/,
which seems to be one of the more obscure practices at IETF, since
when I was on IESG and referred to it in discussions with IESG and
IAB members, people often told me they hadn't seen it.
I sent an email to the IAB on 20 May to seek clarification. There
hasn't been any reply up to now.
I was only on the IESG for six years, but AFAIK, this isn't quite right.
I would like to thank Mr Rescorla and you for providing feedback on the above.
Working group chairs, and ADs, have a lot of flexibility because we
rely on them to Do The Right Thing, If that flexibility is misused,
that's a problem. Please speak up if this looks like a problem to
you - there is an appeals chain, and it starts with the person who
takes a problematic action.
I am not sure whether you are aware of what happens (it may be
different nowadays) when a persons speaks up on this mailing list.
The appeal records are inaccessible:
> GET /iesg/appeal/response-to-klensin-2017-11-29.html HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.ietf.org
> User-Agent: [removed]
> Accept: */*
>
* Connection state changed (MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS updated)!
< HTTP/2 404
< date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:04:25 GMT
> GET /iesg/appeal/response-to-masotta-2013-11-14.html HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.ietf.org
> User-Agent: [removed]
> Accept: */*
>
* Connection state changed (MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS updated)!
< HTTP/2 404
< date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:07:35 GMT
There were eight people who filed appeals over the last 10
years. There is only one of them who regularly participates in IETF
discussions. Does that mean that none of the other regular IETF
participants took action when they saw a person taking a problematic
action? Or is it because none of the Area Directors have ever taken
a problematic action?
Would the short draft be "AD sponsored" if the it was authored by an
Area Director? I suggest looking at the previous cases, e.g. RFC 7475.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
