On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Ralph Droms
<rdroms(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:10 PM 2/19/14, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
As a matter of process, I'm confused about the handling of this appeal.
It sounds like Phil appealed the approval of RFC 7049.
That, I hope, was a decision made by the IESG, not a decision made by
one AD.
So, I'm failing to understand how it makes sense for you to respond to
this appeal as an AD.
Phill took the first step of addressing his complaint to the
responsible AD (me). This is my response.
So, to clarify the process, Phill did not submit an appeal to the IESG
under section 6.5 of RFC 2026. Rather, he took his complaint directly to
you.
As an aside at this point - is there a formal description of this
complaint to you as an "appeal"? If so, where is the process documented?
It was an appeal because I advise the IETF chair that I wished to make an
appeal and I followed the procedure that he advised me to take and the AD
advised me to take.
I don't believe that I should be the one looking through books to find out
what the correct appeals process is.
My complaints are as follows:
1) I was prevented from contributing to what purports to be an IETF
proposed standard.
2) I made complaints about this in last call
3) I was effectively denied the ability to appeal.
So yes, I do insist that this be listed as an appeal in the plenary and
that the outcome is listed as 'it was botched'.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/