On 6/13/2008 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I note that, while the present situation and 2821bis constitute
particularly glaring examples of these misplaced priorities and
abuses, none of the issues above is unique to 2821bis. They
are really about how the IESG manages and expresses its
authority and discretion.
John,
I applaud your decision to appeal an IESG DISCUSS (I have read far
enough to understand that the basis of the appeal was consensus among
folks who are closely following this matter and chose to comment on the
matter of whether to file an appeal).
I do not have a strong opinion about this specific case (I may even be
in disagreement with some of the specifics stated in the appeal), but I
believe it is necessary for the community to exercise their right to
appeal to let the IESG know that their predisposition to use DISCUSS for
imposing personal preferences, biases or undocumented norms is
inappropriate at best. I strongly agree with the conclusion that we
cannot rely on norms supposedly established based on instances of
compliance under duress (ok, I agree that is a bit of hyperbole).
I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override
procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.
An appeal crossed my mind a few times in the recent past and I have
seriously considered appealing a couple of times, but due to time
constraints chose to pursue the path of least resistance. I thank you
for taking the time and energy to appeal.
best regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf