Dear Sander, group, Not judging one way or another (that is not my job) - but asking for resignation via a message like would be a request that falls outside the IETF process. If there is any discontent with decisions an AD made (such as when you believe a decision was made in error), the IESG has an appeals process that should be followed. https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/appeals/ More details can be found in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html and https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/appeals-actions-decisions/ Kind regards, Job On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, at 20:32, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > I am shocked by the declaration of consensus on > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming by Martin Vigoureux. There > was much discussion going on about one aspect of the draft, and there > was clearly no consensus amongst the participants. There are still > questions that haven't been answered about even the applicability of > the contested text, let alone addressed. Promised about for example > reporting back on the impact on RIR policies have never been fulfilled. > And those are just the two bits that concern me most personally. > > Steamrolling a draft through a working group completely undermines the > whole idea of the IETF and greatly damages it trustworthiness and > reliability. By bluntly declaring consensus despite all of the > objections within two hours of the latest version of the draft being > published I feel that Martin Vigoureux has lost the credibility as an > AD. I strongly feel a resignation is in order at this point. > > Cheers, > Sander > > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
