Re: Adminrest: section 3.5b

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > Brian suggests:
> >  Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal. Strawperson:
> >
> >  Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the grounds
> >  that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
> >  standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals process
> >  applicable to the standards process. Matters outside the standards
> >  process such as staff, budget and contractual matters are not subject
> >  to such appeal.
> >
> > works for me
> >
> > Scott
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble visualizing this - can anyone give an 
> example of a decision that materially damages correct execution of 2026?
>
> Have we ever been the subject of a decision, by whomever, that would 
> qualify for an appeal using this text?

Well, suppose the IAOC decided, on financial grounds, to abolish
Draft Standard and Standard RFCs because they cost too much to
process? Or more plausibly, to stop all RFC editing for 6 months
due to a budget crisis?

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf