![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hello,
Quoting from the IAB response, and trying to cover only the important facts:
The IAB interpreted this appeal to be as follows:
The appeal concerns whether the IESG, in upholding the suspension of Mr. Morfin's posting privileges to the ietf-languages mailing list, made an incorrect decision.
.....we find there is no specific mailing list management process RFC that applies.
While we find that neither RFC 3683 nor RFC 3934 directly apply in this case, the IAB understands that the IETF must be able to act in the face of ambiguity in "the rules." Indeed, it would be a terrible outcome if we found the IESG's decision would have been reasonable if neither RFC 3683 nor RFC 3934 existed, but now unreasonable since the documents do exist but don't apply.
Responsible parties must be able to take action even if there is ambiguity or lack of explicit coverage by specific process documents.
current list maintainer practice is only to block postings from operationally-disruptive sources.
The IAB found that the response provided by the IESG in this action did not provide sufficient justification to sustain the banning of Mr. Morfin from the ietf-languages mailing list.
.........the IAB annuls the IESG's decision in this appeal and sends the matter back to the IESG for resolution.
I can interpret this ruling in two possible ways:
I would appreciate a clarification from the IAB.
Harald Alvestrand
Attachment:
pgpG6bohEjxYD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.