Subject: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 07:08:09 -0400

Hi Jim,

At 11:56 PM 5/16/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
>OK.  I am not in favor of ISOC being brought into the loop till the very
>end.  But they should be part of the process as logic check for sure if
>required.

Yes, I already got this correction from Scott Bradner and
Brian Carpenter, as well.  Even if we use the usual IESG-driven
approach, there is a final step where the ISOC BOTs accepts
the new or modified process description.  Apparently this is
required for insurance reasons.  I hadn't worked on any previous
process documents, so I didn't know about this step.

>WG Chair
>IESG
>IAB
>ISOC
>
>This is standard open door policy in any company I know of too.

Yes, and this also matches the standard appeals process for
IETF WG activities.

Margaret

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 17:48:00 +0300 (EEST)

> Yes, and this also matches the standard appeals process for

"IETF WG activities" is ambiguous.  The path holds for process appeals, 
but for technical appeals, the IAB is the highest you can go.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings