Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am not sure what your question is.

I have not researched whether there have been any appeals of IESG 
judgment of IETF rough consensus.  I am not trying to quesiton that part 
of the process.
Having said that, there does exist a process to appeal such if the IESG 
actually does get it wrong.  There is no process to appeal an IESG 
change of an IESG statement.

None of this seems particularly relevant to the question of whether our 
codified rules ought to match the community expectations.  Which is what 
this document does.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/25/2020 3:43 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> At 07:04 AM 25-01-2020, Joel Halpern Direct wrote:
>> As the document says, there already is an IESG statement.  There are 
>> several concerns with this.  The important one as far as I am 
>> concerned is that the IESG can change its policy.  While it might be 
>> bad practice to change it without IETF rough consensus, that is not 
>> aformally required.  This way, changing it DOES require IETF rough 
>> consensus.
>> And it seems to me (and others I have talked to) that it is quite 
>> appropriate for an IETF stream BCP to update IETF Stream policy. That 
>> is where we define such things.
> 
> A BCP does not prevent the IESG from approving the publication of a 
> (IETF) RFC as it is the IESG which makes a determination about whether 
> there is or there isn't rough consensus.  The available recourse in case 
> of disagreement is to request the IESG to reverse its decision.  Has 
> there been any appeal in such cases over the last five years?
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy