william(at)elan.net wrote:
it would be good to decide on if coordinated action by SPF
Community is necessary or if people in the community who do
not agree with IETF decisions (on SID) should proceed with
actions such as appeals to IETF Chair individually.
ACK. Don't count on me for another individual appeal, I'll
try to stick to my "one appeal per year" rule. That doesn't
mean that I intend to do nothing at all:
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format/29203>
Since period to launch appeals is limited
Yes, very limited, details in RfC 2026. My two halfhearted
Cc:s to Brian (current Chair) had so far no effect. I didn't
try to force it (like To: Brian, Cc: general list or similar).
discussion and understanding on what SPF Council intends to
do should be done ASAP within next couple weeks. I therefore
request that this be discussed on the next meeting of SPF
Council
Seconded. I've privately proposed an "3710 obsolete" I-D as a
possible way to get the attention of the IESG, but got no reply
from the SPF Council. Chuck so far didn't answer the "status"
question here - probably waiting for the reply from Mr. Hardie.
I've posted an updated options draft (featuring op=pra again)
ready to be submitted as an I-D within minutes if the Council
thinks that this might help (?). Removing op=helo / op=nohelo
because there was no real discussion about it would be trivial.
As I hinted "somebody" explained that the proper time for an
appeal is after the fact, in other words NOW. It's nobody's
business who this was, he just wanted to point out the proper
procedures - but he certainly wrote more RfCs than I've socks
and knows how stuff works.
AFAIK there exist ethics (sp?) commissions in all US states,
but I have zero ideas what they do. There might be a similar
commission at the iSOC. For the 2026 way - IAB-appeal about a
process failure - that might be the step _after_ the IESG did
not act on a normal appeal, but see above, only after some
communication with Brian.
That's BTW a good old FidoNet rule, no formal policy complaint
without previous _serious_ attempts of a peaceful settlement.
The outcome is always unpredictable, if a 3rd party tries to
decide a complaint it won't see the case from our POV.
Gathering facts and evidence: That should be rather simple,
the archives are public, and if everybody submits his top ten
links to the Council they'd have a clear case.
There is some more procedural stuff like RfC 3777, but that
is far beyond suicidal deep within Chuck's plan-B territory.
followed further by discussions on this mail list
A new PR might be also interesting. My attempt to forward the
IESG announcement to spf-deployment failed miserably because I
"thought" it's spf-deploy, stupid, sorry. Bye, Frank