Re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

Speaking as an outsider on this particular topic...

Is there any reason why these appeals should be single-threaded?

As much fun as it might be to continue to rotate this topic on a spit,
we've been discussing whether we actually made this decision or not
for six months. Continuing to discuss it for another two or three
years is just pathological. If it was the WRONG decision, deciding
that we made the decision, and letting the wrongness blossom/fester
and become evident to all, would be an improvement.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>


> Harald,
>
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> > But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
> > decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
> > recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
>
> There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the
procedures,
> that disagree with you. As of myself, I am not completely happy with
the
> way Tony has worded his appeal (although I do agree with it), which
is
> why I will file one on different grounds as soon as this one as been
> ruled. Since it appears that there is a waiting list to file an
appeal
> on this matter, I am sure that we will be entertained for the next
two
> or three years to come.
>
> Michel.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was passed through ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it,
which is a sublist of ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
Administrator (ietf_admin@ngnet.it).