Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

SM <> Fri, 20 June 2008 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A67A3A683E; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C36E3A683E; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SXJ5fNfoTRht; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB0F3A6812; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m5K6eV5P006477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1213944045; x=1214030445; bh=EakL8o0QJTpyU1n2kaTaxtpTcDUUPyQQednc Z6nWI6U=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=Ry+8p7UfjSMQk7U2mYTYvlazy7Co8c4hpL EnuV3ea/UCnQBSy4KM0/DKd2Oo5AJB1APvE+U/7mhll4o2PfpLzZV7RNE8Sbd5kFFNE QxlgENfyssB+XveXjeJ91HJzT07jwGVz2Zqpn8P6d1zGLmNMRDUNPdgTEq9dIafIVCb Z+w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=DaZD0wE22NtF+PkuKugd6eIGfpQEmxyAEeAMFR6apM0Pn0I4SzrIjGBKgQPWKLRaW nTGhv1Vxr2SPYKgoEWCWcSrQ+UnHTxdEGPAYlPjda/GB/J+6XhE1lk+TCYkCme375n6 Aw8xxUO6EHr9uAm5dTIHTe04Qz+soO71O8lnD4c=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:39:44 -0700
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[]> <> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 10:50 19-06-2008, Russ Housley wrote:
>That seems to be the crux of the appeal.  Does every possible thing
>upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a
>written rule?  Don't we select leaders because we have some
>confidence in their judgement?

A process gets constrained if we have to go by written rules 
only.  However, without such rules one has to resort to second 
guessing to determine what the rules might be.  Written rules are a 
way to set the expectations and bring in openness and fairness into 
the process.  The decision-making process is hampered if the rules 
are too rigid.  That's why guiding principles are defined.

By selecting leaders, we are demonstrating confidence in them.  As in 
any process, disputes may arise.  Sometimes, a person might not agree 
with a particular decision.  The person may ask the leaders to review 
their decision.

Appeals are there for a purpose.  It provides a recourse if the 
person is not satisfied with a judgement.  Some may view it as a 
process failure.  Others may read it as a motion of no confidence in 
the judgement of the leaders.  It is better to hear both sides of the 
argument instead of jumping to hasty conclusions.  Whether it is in a 
Working Group discussion, on a Last Call or anywhere throughout the 
process, there are bound to be differences of opinion.  Sometimes 
this entails challenging current dogma or some higher 
authority.  This is after all a battleground of ideas which are 
judged on their technical merits.


IETF mailing list