Skip to main content

Appeal regarding IESG decision on the GROW WG (David Meyer; 2003-11-15) - 2003-11-15
Appeal - 2003-11-15

Date: 15. november 2003 09:47 -0800
From: David Meyer <>
Subject: Formal Appeal regarding IESG decision on the GROW WG


             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

             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.