On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
July 31, secretariat cut-off date July 18 IIRC, i.e. anything
sent after July 18 might not make it to the IESG appeal pages:
Brian could ask whether it's okay to publish it if that's not
obvious.
I'm curious where these dates came from?
My understanding is that there is 2 months time since the decision
was first announced and that means appeal has to be made before
August 29th, is that not correct? But obviously this does not mean
that you need to wait up to the last minute ...
Today was an excellent chance to discuss this and act.
I have to agree. Council had quorum and should have made a resolution
about SPF position in regards to approval of the SID drafts in their
current with text conflicting with SPF draft.
I certainly have no clue why exactly Chuck resigned, and so I'm
forced to assume the worst case, you and Julian have joined the
delaying-game-fraction.
Perhaps it would be really helpful if Chuck provided a more detailed
explanation as to what lead to his resignation rather then us making
lots of guesses. It certainly was not well timed though...
JFTR, I got no replies for the "3710 obsolete" I-Dea,
I did not think you were serious, 3710 is 'IESG charter' RFC.
You may not like it, but obsoluting it will require serious
consensus of the core people at IETF. But also note that its
"just" informational RFC.
But as SPF Council you're NOT authorized to discuss the public
affairs of the Community - and especially not this affair - in
secret.
Perhaps they are not authorized to keep the results of any such
discussions secret if they involve SPF position or work agenda,
but I do not agree that they should not be doing private discussions
at all.
You're NOT authorized to censor the log files of the public
Council meetings.
That is true. Private discussions should be taken to separate
forum and not part of public meeting. What should have happened
is that meeting should have been adjourned for say 30 minutes
and then resumed after discussions on another forum finished up
(and resuming would require again checking that there is a quorum
just like it would have been done with completely new meeting).
especially not the things that we decided wouldn't be such
hot ideas.
There aren't too many ideas on the table: 1 - Appeal procedure
as explained by **** and William, 2 - Keith's idea, "considered
harmful" I-D
Perhaps these two should be combined. One possible way to do it
is to write an ID about SID being harmful and against IETF standard
and be detailed about this. Then use that as basis for the appeal.
This would be good because there are lots of issues and very long
appeal email is difficult for others to follow. Here would be an
opportunity to make actual appeal email short as summary and refer
everyone interested to the draft as well as say to IESG and IAB
that issues in draft should be considered the appeal.
P.S. Frank is right - now is pretty good time to launch an appeal and
get attention from other people at IETF. During the last month there
were quite a number of people saying that IESG is overstepping its
authority to make political decisions to deny publication of documents
or registration with IANA and at the same time its also seen (based
on another appeal and some other things) that they are not doing
appropriate technical review of the proposed RFC documents (which
should be main duty of IESG) and noting and correcting any errors.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net