Speaking as an outsider on this particular topic...
Is there any reason why these appeals should be single-threaded?
As much fun as it might be to continue to rotate this topic on a spit,
we've been discussing whether we actually made this decision or not
for six months. Continuing to discuss it for another two or three
years is just pathological. If it was the WRONG decision, deciding
that we made the decision, and letting the wrongness blossom/fester
and become evident to all, would be an improvement.
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Py" <michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
Harald,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the
procedures,
that disagree with you. As of myself, I am not completely happy with
the
way Tony has worded his appeal (although I do agree with it), which
is
why I will file one on different grounds as soon as this one as been
ruled. Since it appears that there is a waiting list to file an
appeal
on this matter, I am sure that we will be entertained for the next
two
or three years to come.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it,
which is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are
passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
Administrator (ietf_admin(_at_)ngnet(_dot_)it).