OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[Bound, Jim]

I agree I stated it so someone else would say this not me.  Your a brave
man :--)
OK thats over.
thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:15 AM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path
> 
> 
> "Bound, Jim" wrote:
> > 
> > Yep I knew that about tech appeals.  Suggesting we discuss 
> if we want 
> > ISOC also for tech appeals but did not directly in the mail.  Sorry.
> 
> Not if you believe that technical appeals should be heard by 
> people who understand them. The ISOC Board is simply not 
> competent for technical discussions; it relies on the IAB for 
> technical advice.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> > /jim
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas at netcore.fi]
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 10:48 AM
> > > To: Margaret Wasserman
> > > Cc: Bound, Jim; Dave Crocker; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> > > Subject: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 17 May 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > > > >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.
> > >
> > > "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
>