Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing
one...
(On the other hand, that might simply be because 97% of the appeals are written
by loons. Statistics can't tell us everything.)
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
________________________________________
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
[iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: 02 July 2013 23:24
To: abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19,
2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt
This is a dispute about a matter in a working group. The same matter has
previously been raised with the working group chairs and responsible
Area Director, as specified in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1.
Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial
discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the
primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific
rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and
IPR.
After reviewing the appeal, including the associated list discussion and
draft revisions, the IESG concludes that the authors made a reasonable
editorial choice that was well within their discretion and that none of
the messages at issue fall under the required acknowledgment rules of
RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 and RFC 5378 Sections 5.6a and 1c. The IESG
finds that the chairs and responsible AD handled complaints about the
matter appropriately.