Folks,
I am increasingly concerned about efficiency in the IETF, given the loads
everyone is carrying. One source of inefficiency is having someone create
work for others, without having already done enough of their own work.
[...]
A few years ago I proposed http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
Abstract
RFC 2026 outlines the procedure for appealing decisions or process
failures to the IESG and the IAB. This document describes how an
appellant should first gain support for filing their appeal before an
appeal is being considered.
I just went back to thread starting at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg43976.html to convince me
that dropping the document at that time was done based on lack of support. It
seems to me that at the time there were to many difficult and contentious
details that it was not really worth the effort to prioritize on that document.
While the gist of the discussion went in the direction to suggest the IAB and
IESG that appeals could be returned with a stamp "no merit".
Ted's mail triggered the thought that appeal support could also go another way.
If there are people who think that an appeal is important they can help the
appellant to create a concise and direct appeal.
-- Olaf
(no hats)
PS Note the subject change. I am not talking about a (this) specific appeal.
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf