Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list, a host of
people declaring
themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all for an
"informal" request for a
PR-Action ? That would all presumably have to be repeated under a Last Call ?
Which will occur at
some point (presumably at least one IESG meeting, or at a minimum 2 weeks)
after a formal request ?
At this rate, we'll be wasting list bandwidth on this until Christmas.
I would suggest that, as Harald posted his "intent to file" message back on
August 29th, OVER
one month ago, there has been enough debate, and Harald should either file or
publicly announce that
he is not going to file.
In other words (to quote our Chair from another context), I would ask for a
guillotine on this
matter.
Regards
Marshall
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:40:52 +0200
Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to the responses.
But as of now, we have not received such a request in
the case of JFC Morfin.
In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet in this
case.
Brian
Bill Manning wrote:
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf