It is important to do so in ways that ensure that the insurance
criteria are not breached.
Returning the document is not covered in the rules. But there seems to
be no reason that the IESG could not ask someone (e.g. Ted Hardie who
has already done so) to write up a concise summary.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully support such an approach (and did propose the same strategy to the
IESG while I was a member of the IESG myself).
I agree. Our process may be complicated, but a deviation from due process
that requires 145 pages of description is simply not possible. We have
specific rules in RFC 2026 and RFC 2418 (and various updates) and it should
be possible to describe specific alleged deviations from those rules in a
page or two. If the appeal merely reflects the fact that the appellant
disagrees with the WG consensus, that is not a ground for appeal.
I do not believe the IESG is under any obligation to spend its precious
time digesting such a mass of text to discern any actual grounds for
appeal.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf