Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/11/22 21:38, John C Klensin wrote:

> If they intend the first, then my position is that the path by
> which we have gotten here is sufficiently flawed that Dan should
> asked once again to cut back on the behavior the community finds
> obnoxious and disruptive, warned that the next invocation of BCP
> 83 (if needed) will almost certainly be more definitive, but
> otherwise let off the hook this time.  If the second, I'm happy
> about that more nuanced approach.  So, IMO, the question is
> reasonable and should be answered precisely because this is not
> normal document processing.

Assuming IESG were to do something similar to that, it might help if 
they were to actually describe specifically what is obnoxious and/or 
disruptive, by referencing specific sections of applicable IETF 
Consensus documents.

Keith