Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer,
At 02:49 AM 24-05-2019, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>This is actually written down in more detail in 
>https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/, 
>which seems to be one of the more obscure practices at IETF, since 
>when I was on IESG and referred to it in discussions with IESG and 
>IAB members, people often told me they hadn't seen it.

I sent an email to the IAB on 20 May to seek clarification.  There 
hasn't been any reply up to now.

>I was only on the IESG for six years, but AFAIK, this isn't quite right.

I would like to thank Mr Rescorla and you for providing feedback on the above.

>Working group chairs, and ADs, have a lot of flexibility because we 
>rely on them to Do The Right Thing, If that flexibility is misused, 
>that's a problem. Please speak up if this looks like a problem to 
>you - there is an appeals chain, and it starts with the person who 
>takes a problematic action.

I am not sure whether you are aware of what happens (it may be 
different nowadays) when a persons speaks up on this mailing list.

The appeal records are inaccessible:

   > GET /iesg/appeal/response-to-klensin-2017-11-29.html HTTP/1.1
   > Host: www.ietf.org
   > User-Agent: [removed]
   > Accept: */*
   >
   * Connection state changed (MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS updated)!
   < HTTP/2 404
   < date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:04:25 GMT

   > GET /iesg/appeal/response-to-masotta-2013-11-14.html HTTP/1.1
   > Host: www.ietf.org
   > User-Agent: [removed]
   > Accept: */*
   >
   * Connection state changed (MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS updated)!
   < HTTP/2 404
   < date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:07:35 GMT

There were eight people who filed appeals over the last 10 
years.  There is only one of them who regularly participates in IETF 
discussions.  Does that mean that none of the other regular IETF 
participants took action when they saw a person taking a problematic 
action?  Or is it because none of the Area Directors have ever taken 
a problematic action?

Would the short draft be "AD sponsored" if the it was authored by an 
Area Director?  I suggest looking at the previous cases, e.g. RFC 7475.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy