--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 14:19 -0400 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
Dave:
If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you
do not, what is the basis for your view that its
considerations were sufficiently faulty to warrant being
overridden?
Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not
raised. It was not raised by John, the document PROTO
shepherd, or the IESG member sponsoring the document.
Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he
didn't exchange. I'll
merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to
the public mailing
list, it seems pretty likely that salient details would
quickly have been put forward.
This is an individual submission, not a WG document. So,
there is no charter that lists the appropriate mail list for
such a discussion. That said, John did take the issue to a
mail list. I know this because someone forward his posting to
me. John did not CC me on the posting, which I interpret as
not seeking dialogue at that point.
Russ, that note was sent to the mailing list after I received
your "change the document or appeal" note. I believed that
note from you closed the door on any further dialogue with you
(or the IESG). The note to the SMTP list was simply to collect
opinions on which of the two choices you gave me to adopt.
If you intended the "change the document or appeal" note to be
interpreted in any other way, I apologize for not copying you on
the question to the list, but I really could not figure out any
other way to read it (and cannot to this day).
best,
john
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf