Re: Appeals, post-appeal discussions, DoS attacks on the IETF, and the depth of turtles

John C Klensin wrote:

 [DRP excl. last calls]
> in general, if an AD, or the IESG, as a whole, is asked to
> issue a Last Call and declines to do so, that decision
> should be subject to appeal.   And, if the IESG wants to see
> that "in general" narrowed --as I think it should be-- then
> they should be generating, or convincing someone else to
> generate-- a clear statement about the conditions under which
> Last Calls will and will not be issued and get community
> consensus behind that statement.

Yes, they need something against bogus (or malicious) last call
requests.  That something would have the same DoS protection as
the proposed 'dispute resolution process'.

 [active participants for the recall procedure]
> it is hard to identify them in a clear way
 [...]
> IAB and IESG members were excluded as an unintended side-
> effect.

Maybe - if you intend to revive that draft -  you could add all
(co-) authors of "n" or more standards track documents, for an
"n" covering all past and present IAB and IESG members.

 [duel draft]
> the Nomcom Chair could wait a week before doing anything,
> then ask the Chair if he or she was still serious and notify
> the relevant IESG member to see if any other action was
> likely to be forthcoming before presenting the question to
> the Nomcom.  Is that what you had in mind?

Yes, maybe as explicit right.  If the IETF or IESG Chair added
Cc: ietf@ietf.org or similar it's hopeless, no further delay,
they have to shoot it out.

Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf