Re: Resignation request

[Melchior Aelmans <[e-mail]>]

I won't just throw in a +1 ;)

On the serious side; following this discussion closely, I have to agree
that at the least it doesn't feel correct and as if this is the right way
of operating.
It might be correct from a procedure pov but it doesn't feel like it should
go this way.

Thanks Nick for wording it better :)

Regards,
Melchior

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:57 PM Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sander Steffann wrote on 02/03/2020 20:32:
> > Steamrolling a draft through a working group completely undermines
> > the whole idea of the IETF and greatly damages it trustworthiness and
> > reliability.  By bluntly declaring consensus despite all of the
> > objections within two hours of the latest version of the draft being
> > published I feel that Martin Vigoureux has lost the credibility as an
> > AD. I strongly feel a resignation is in order at this point.
>
> There's been a really serious breach of due process here.  The issues
> that cropped up on around draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming are
> subtle and not easily resolved.  What is beginning to emerge as
> consensus is that there are underlying problems with 8200 that need
> examination and careful resolution.
>
> Frankly, it is rather difficult to see how the srv6 draft can progress
> without this clarification.
>
> For sure there's no basis for someone to throw a couple of extra
> sentences into a draft and then for an AD to declare consensus two hours
> later - and before anyone's had the chance to even read the draft.
>
> At the very least, the consensus judgement needs to be rolled back.  I
> respectfully suggest that Martin needs to recuse himself from any
> further involvement with this draft, and that he should consider whether
> his actions are compatible with continuing to be an AD.
>
> Nick
>
>