Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Den 31. mai 2015 10:52, skrev Eliot Lear:

Whereas I take issue with the IESG (and IAB) making statements
that should be handled (a) through our normative processes and
document series; and (b) where there should be certain standards
across our document series, and this is one of them.


Now this statement is about Internet-Drafts, not about the RFC series
or any substream thereof.

If we figured out who is in charge of the Internet Drafts mechanism as
a whole, that body might be the right one to make pronouncements for
the whole whatever-it-is. (I don't think we've ever called the
Internet drafts a document series...)

I don't think we've figured out that yet. And it's a separate topic.


On 5/31/15 3:38 AM, John C Klensin wrote:


--On Saturday, May 30, 2015 18:19 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
<spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

More broadly than just to John ...

And my note was a little bit of an over-specific response to 
Eliot and David.  To be clear, modulo the quibble about putting 
one toe into the Acknowledgments swamp, rather than either 
keeping it out or jumping in all the way, I think the IESG's 
handling of this is, AFAICT, just right and shows sensitivity to 
all of the right issues.   I am also reasonably confident that, 
if the IESG does not assert authority I don't think it has or 
should have, the other streams and the RSE can (and likely will) 
take care of themselves.  I didn't see any signs of such 
assertions before in this situation; your note provides 
reassurance that I didn't just miss them :-)

john