IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 17 July 2020 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC643A0AF3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 05:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aGZizapD-QSM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 05:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C933A0AF1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 05:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.132.149]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 06HCCOnv027423 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 05:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1594987957; x=1595074357; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pjcWTZNsxYDGyomcqqxAuYnnkJhZYQQ6Xigsaxv4QHo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=z42rGNUsESjWnV3Q5jT7n3uCBcMZI7MFbob3qdX4wYvgXdg5Us4avkY4loTBb0c4S I9YqUGEO866uup13YsDVnWwSRyDnDipOaPaYeNzEHPyXsPZbBr+9y3ef5CesTC8qsA qIozYJZcU7lpdfCxPWae5u3lsvMeOYW/6WXH75UU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200717035158.0b576520@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:22:30 -0700
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
In-Reply-To: <088F94E4-11AC-47A7-BFFC-5C1AE2FE49C1@cooperw.in>
References: <159318840162.4951.12569119165623562334@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200627023025.0b145350@elandnews.com> <5C58F041-9991-49DA-98B6-6700499DFBC9@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200709132444.098ec410@elandnews.com> <CALaySJJbNHu=ktzeUX+k5Rj2bt2UQkx262mvD7wHLzEVXw3VxQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200710102806.0b084a90@elandnews.com> <CALaySJJwTLKgcEyWwmhPin3sX1C9kAMdj+ukMi2wfdAh399m7Q@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200710113940.0ac68208@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200712111856.0a815438@elandnews.com> <C30D52D7-376C-4599-93E8-48D16BDB262A@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200713124426.0b87c770@elandnews.com> <7F116050-D36E-4B78-80CD-48DEC24E32F1@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200714093250.0b840660@elandnews.com> <088F94E4-11AC-47A7-BFFC-5C1AE2FE49C1@cooperw.in>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yZj2b1662ly4hVZdFpg7NcUAe5I>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:12:52 -0000

Hi Alissa,
At 05:53 PM 14-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Maybe the better path at this point would be for you to appeal 
>whichever actions I took that you find objectionable, that way I can 
>recuse from the process and the rest of the IESG can handle it. 
>Typically if people email me directly I assume they expect me to 
>respond, but if I'm recused that will take me out of the loop.

Thanks for explaining your position.

>Ok. I think the chairs and I were just following typical practice. 
>Lots of the WGs chartered in the last year don't meet the criteria 
>you specify above:

The text which I cited is from BCP 25.  It is up to the IESG to 
determine which procedures are necessary to ensure openness and 
fairness of the "process".  If I understood correctly, the point 
which you raised (thanks for providing the links) is that other IESG 
members are not following the "Note Well".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email