[Gendispatch] Re: New Version Notification for draft-eggert-appeal-support-01.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 22-Jul-26 03:39, Felix Linker wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I think your proposed text still suffers from the issue that such a requirement would lead to awkward mail counting over IETF lists. What is "directly relevant"? What counts as finding a supporter?

Honsetly I doubt if anyone would waste their time counting such messages. Obvious violations would fall under RFC 9945 (moderation), as you say. I'd probably prefer this to be phrased as a guideline rather than a rule, but Lars might disagree.

Regards
    Brian

> 
> I think that spam to gain support is not our biggest threat. It's certainly annoying, but you can just bin the emails. If it's even more than that, the spam can be moderated as any other spam.
> 
> Cheers,
> Felix
> 
> Am Mo., 20. Juli 2026 um 23:33 Uhr schrieb Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> 
>     On one point only:
> 
>      >
>      >> (b) "In order to find qualified supporters, the appellant MAY send a *single* message to *one* public IETF mailing list." I think this is too strict. How do you count what counts as "finding qualified supporters"? I worry this will lead to awkward mail counting and policing, which we should avoid.
>      >
>      > Agreed that it’s not ideal. Would you have a proposal for what to do instead? It is reasonable to let someone who is appealing announce so and ask for support, but of course within reason.
> 
>     ...the appellant MAY send a single message to any directly relevant public IETF mailing list (such as the working group concerned) and to the IETF general list. This message MUST respect the IETF Guidelines for Conduct [BCP7154].
> 
>     Regards/Ngā mihi
>          Brian
> 
>     On 20-Jul-26 21:36, Lars Eggert wrote:
>      > Hi,
>      >
>      > On Jul 20, 2026, at 10:34, Felix Linker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >> (a) "Qualified supporters MUST NOT have supported the same appellant during a previous appeal within the past year." I think this is too strict. I guess the purpose is to defend against filing repeated appeals.
>      >
>      > Yes. Basically, the sane group of four people could hence get unlimited appeals before the body.
>      >
>      >> But I think the better measure here would be to give IAB/IESG more freedom in rejecting appeals that are effectively duplicates of previous appeals. (I don't know which power the IAB/IESG has in that regard.)
>      >
>      > I think that (1) the IESG and IAB are (rightfully) very hesitant to not take on incoming appeals even when they would already be fully justified to do so (c.f. recent examples). So I think an external hurdle is more suitable to achieve the goal here.
>      >
>      >> (b) "In order to find qualified supporters, the appellant MAY send a *single* message to *one* public IETF mailing list." I think this is too strict. How do you count what counts as "finding qualified supporters"? I worry this will lead to awkward mail counting and policing, which we should avoid.
>      >
>      > Agreed that it’s not ideal. Would you have a proposal for what to do instead? It is reasonable to let someone who is appealing announce so and ask for support, but of course within reason.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Lars
>      >
>      >
>