"Ted" == Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Ted> Speaking again as someone who thinks this is general problem, the
Ted> issue I am raising is not that there are bad discusses. The issue I
Ted> am raising is that the document which describes what discusses
Ted> are or should be has no force at the moment at all,
Ted, I'd like to disagree with this point. I believe that you could
appeal a discuss because it does not meet the discuss criteria. I
believe you could ask the iesg as a body to evaluate whether a discuss fit the
criteria.
If you did appeal, I believe you could carry the appeal to the IAB; I
believe that they would conclude that the IESG has chosen to bind
itself to the discuss criteria document.
There is some complexity. The IESG could in theory use some other
mechanism rather than its balloting procedure to reach consensus on
what to do with a document. Especially if that consensus were strong,
I think it would be reasonable for the IESG to do that. In my time on
the IESG that's never happened; I don't see it starting soon.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf