--On Thursday, February 27, 2020 22:40 -0600 Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John -- > > As I mentioned to the chairs privately, I may well run out of > time to rev this document prior to Vancouver. If I do have > time to revise it, my plan is to incorporate feedback > specifically about the draft that was provided on the > ietf@xxxxxxxx list during the six months of its initial > validity. > > I'm not going to comment on any supposed interaction between > the document and your appeal until the IESG has reached > consensus on a response: doing so would necessarily presuppose > an outcome (both in disposition and rationale), which would be > presumptuous on my part. Adam, I was not asking for such a comment before the IESG reaches (and announces) its conclusions. Your providing one would clearly be inappropriate (whether presumptuous or not) and I would not make such a request. However, given that your document was specifically mentioned in the appeal (which does not prove there is any interaction, of course), I was just trying to suggest to Pete that, _if_ the IESG reaches some sort of conclusion and that conclusion were to include either agreement that there is an interaction or that the document action being appealed is about a problem that your document might lead us into more of, it might be wise to block out a bit more time for discussion than might otherwise be the case. best, john
