Date: 15. november 2003 09:47 -0800
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: chair@ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, grow@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Formal Appeal regarding IESG decision on the GROW WG

                 IESG,

                 This note requests that the IESG review and reverse its
                 decision regarding closure of the GROW working group.

                 In particular, the decision, while possibly consistent
                 with a strict interpretation of BCP's 9 and 25, is clearly
                 outside the spirit of openness, fairness, and transparency
                 that is at the core of our process. Indeed, section 3.4
                 of BCP 25 states that

                     "Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF
                       process. As much as possible the process is designed so
                       that compromises can be made, and genuine consensus
                       achieved; however, there are times when even the most
                       reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree.
                       To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such
                       conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review
                       and discussion."

                 "...conflicts must be resolved by a process of open
                 review and discussion." Did that happen in this
                 case? Clearly not (that much is a matter of record). In
                 fact, I was never notified, and the first information I
                 received was on the WG mailing list. See
                 http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00075.html

                 In addition, based on the facts of this case, I believe
                 the decision by the AD to be incorrect (one might read
                 the minutes posted to the mailing list as well, or poll
                 the participants). Add to all of this the fact that the
                 AD was standing down in a matter of 93 minutes after the
                 notice was posted, and we have a situation that is
                 outside the spirit of the IETF's Internet Standards
                 Process. At the very least, these actions would seem to
                 be inconsistent with goals of openness, fairness, and
                 transparency codified in the cited text.

                 Clearly then, what is at stake here is much more than the
                 future of the GROW working group (again, whether or not
                 that group is reopened is an ancillary question). Rather,
                 it would seem only reasonable that we consider having a
                 procedural fallback for all the standards process
                 decisions of an AD who has announced a resignation (i.e.,
                 should be subject to IESG confirmation). So at the very
                 least, I am making this appeal to start our thinking
                 about this topic.

                 Thank you again for your time and consideration.

                 Dave