Skip to main content

Experiment in Long-Term Suspensions From Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Mailing Lists
RFC 4633

Yes


No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Dan Romascanu)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Abstain


Recuse

(Sam Hartman)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Yes) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes (2006-05-17)
The -03 draft was updated in response to review comments
and Last Call comments.

One open question is whether the draft gives the IESG unintended discretion.
Consider the sentence:

   IN particular this experiment allows the
   IESG to create a level of sanction between RFC 3934 and RFC 3683 for
   working group lists and create  sanctions other than RFC 3683 for
   non-working-group lists. 

Should we add this?

   However, it does not allow the IESG to create any sanction which
   exceeds those allowed by RFC 3683.

If the IESG approves the draft but would like this included, please
put it in "Point Raised - writeup needed"

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-03-15)
I support the IETF Last Call comments made by Ted.

I feel sorry and worried that we need to do these sort of administrative experiments, but can support it.

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2006-05-24)
The IESG will still need to figure out what it is going to do - once we know, we could equally well ask the community for approval instead of asking for arbitrary approval beforehand. I would probably be fine with anything that got proposed but I am uncomfortable with asking the community to just deprecate documents that put restrictions on what the IESG can do and allow the IESG to just go an arbitrarily do whatever it wants with no prior description of what it might want to do.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-05-25)
I'd like Brian's suggested text to be added to the draft.

Nits:

  - Line 76 has weird spacing: '...rovides  a pro...'
  - Line 90 has weird spacing: '...changes  have...'
  - Line 105 has weird spacing: '...spended  from ...'
  - Line 106 has weird spacing: '...permits   a lo...'
  - Line 115 has weird spacing: '... create  sanct...'
  - (3 more instances...)

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-03-14)
I have sent in some last call comments on this; I felt it better that they be made publicly.  I am no-ob on this ballot, but I hope that Sam and Brian consider my last call comments.

(David Kessens; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Abstain

Abstain (2006-05-25)
I have one very serious concern about this document that I don't believe can be solved by changing the document itself.

Suspending posting rights on a mailing list is serious business as it is a 
decision that implies that the right of an individual are less important
than the interest of the larger group. I have no problem with this premiss as
long as we have taken adequate measures to ensure that no arbritray actions
can take place.

I am concerned however that we are going to take actions like this
based on a experiment as I am not sure whether an experiment is a tool that
allows us to make such far reaching decisions.

I am not convinced that we need this experiment either but I don't believe that
that in itself is enough reason to block this document.

I am really concerned that we are busy creating a web of regulations and process while in my humble opinion the tools that we already have are both sufficient and adequate, albeit somewhat crude.

I would prefer that we in the future replace current rules by new rules as 
opposed to establishing *additional* rules. I understand that this is an 
experiment and that this experiment could actually lead to that goal so I am
not going to stand in the way of holding up this experiment for this reason.

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain (2006-05-25)
I apologize for having to abstain.  I can't get over some of the language about IESG delegating power and deciding processes etc, even though I realize this is all experiments.  I worry that this will antagonize the community.  I know I should have been more active talking about this on mailing lists to try to explain my concerns before this point.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()