"Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Pete> On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words "Further
>> recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of
>> RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only
>> follow rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.
Pete> I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially
Pete> if you read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would
Pete> have caused less confusion if Scott had said "Other than the
Pete> above, the only grounds for appeal are in cases...".
Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
reading not yours.
Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the
unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need
not get involved.
Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the
IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair. I
think that is useful input for their process.
Ietf mailing list