Re: Withdrawing sponsorship of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "p" ==   <Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com> writes:

    p> Sam,

    p> While it is at each AD's discretion not to sponsor some
    p> document (and not initiate Standards Action), I don't think
    p> this discretion should extend to having a veto at the IESG
    p> table when the document and community input is considered ("if
    p> you make changes I don't like, I'll withdraw my sponsorship").

    p> It looks like our process rules don't really cover the case of
    p> withdrawing sponsorship, but the existing IESG decision-making
    p> process already allows an AD to object to publishing a
    p> document, and I believe using a "sponsorship-withdrawal-veto"
    p> instead is inappropriate.

The IESG internal process requires that anything going before the IESG
have a yes vote to be approved.  I'm unwilling to vote yes on this
document nor am I willing to dedicate my time shepherding it through
the process.  I believe that especially the allocation of my time for
individual submissions is entirely my decision to make.

I have left open the possibility that another AD would support this
work and choose to sponsor it.

But yes, I believe that the consensus of the IESG is that the sponsor
can remove their yes vote and that unless another sponsor steps
forward, that kills a document.  We had a rather long discussion about
this and my understanding of the conclusion of that discussion is that
the IESG should not approve a document that no one on the IESG
affirmatively supports.



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