Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

thanks for the suggestions. Please see https://github.com/larseggert/bcp45bis/pull/6 for a PR that rolls those in.

On 2021-9-8, at 23:41, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>   Because an SAA serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if
>   the IETF Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the SAA
>   team - any SAA decision could be appealed to the IAB.  The IAB shall
>   then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of
>   its own choosing.
> 
> Why are we varying from the normal appeal process here?  One reason to
> keep the IETF Chair out of the operation is exactly so the first
> appeal *can* go to the IETF Chair, as it normally would.  Then to the
> plenary IESG, and then to the IAB.  I don't see a good reason to
> change that process.

This was also brought up by Rob during his AD review. This text is based on the current text in BCP45, which says:

   The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
   appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
   or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a
   pattern of abuse.  They are encouraged to take into account the
   overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether
   particular postings are an aberration or typical.  Complaints
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
   regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I assumed that "complaints" were supposed to be appeals, because otherwise it's undefined what the IAB was supposed to do with these complaints.

I'm fully OK with using the regular appeals process here, but since it would be a change from the original BCP45 and the intent was to do a minimal bis, I didn't make that change.

Thanks,
Lars