ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Appeals, post-appeal discussions, DoS attacks on the IETF, and the depth of turtles

2006-07-24 01:28:25
John C Klensin wrote:

 [DRP excl. last calls]
in general, if an AD, or the IESG, as a whole, is asked to
issue a Last Call and declines to do so, that decision
should be subject to appeal.   And, if the IESG wants to see
that "in general" narrowed --as I think it should be-- then
they should be generating, or convincing someone else to
generate-- a clear statement about the conditions under which
Last Calls will and will not be issued and get community
consensus behind that statement.

Yes, they need something against bogus (or malicious) last call
requests.  That something would have the same DoS protection as
the proposed 'dispute resolution process'.

 [active participants for the recall procedure]
it is hard to identify them in a clear way
 [...]
IAB and IESG members were excluded as an unintended side-
effect.

Maybe - if you intend to revive that draft -  you could add all
(co-) authors of "n" or more standards track documents, for an
"n" covering all past and present IAB and IESG members.

 [duel draft]
the Nomcom Chair could wait a week before doing anything,
then ask the Chair if he or she was still serious and notify
the relevant IESG member to see if any other action was
likely to be forthcoming before presenting the question to
the Nomcom.  Is that what you had in mind?

Yes, maybe as explicit right.  If the IETF or IESG Chair added
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or similar it's hopeless, no further delay,
they have to shoot it out.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf