Re: [Gendispatch] Agenda items for gendispatch?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, February 27, 2020 22:40 -0600 Adam Roach
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> John --
> 
> As I mentioned to the chairs privately, I may well run out of
> time to rev this document prior to Vancouver. If I do have
> time to revise it, my plan is to incorporate feedback
> specifically about the draft that was provided on the
> [e-mail] list during the six months of its initial
> validity.
> 
> I'm not going to comment on any supposed interaction between
> the document and your appeal until the IESG has reached
> consensus on a response: doing so would necessarily presuppose
> an outcome (both in disposition and rationale), which would be
> presumptuous on my part.

Adam,

I was not asking for such a comment before the IESG reaches (and
announces) its conclusions.  Your providing one would clearly be
inappropriate (whether presumptuous or not) and I would not make
such a request.  However, given that your document was
specifically mentioned in the appeal (which does not prove there
is any interaction, of course), I was just trying to suggest to
Pete that, _if_ the IESG reaches some sort of conclusion and
that conclusion were to include either agreement that there is
an interaction or that the document action being appealed is
about a problem that your document might lead us into more of,
it might be wise to block out a bit more time for discussion
than might otherwise be the case. 

best,
   john