Skip to main content

Appeal to the IESG from Todd Glassey (Todd Glassey; 2007-11-26) - 2007-11-26
Response - 2008-01-23

* To: Todd Glassey
* Subject: Response to appeal from Todd Glassey dated 26-Nov-2007
* From: IESG Secretary
* Date: 23-Jan-2008
* Cc:,

Mr. Glassey is appealing a two-week suspension of his ability to post to
the IPR Working Group mail list. (The appeal mentioned a three-week
suspension, but the suspension was stated to be, and in fact was, only a
two-week suspension.)

The IESG has considered the messages posted by Mr. Glassey in the three
days preceding his suspension. The IESG believes that it is important
for chairs to have relatively wide latitude in how they manage their
working groups. The IESG believes that the IPR Working Group Chair's
decision to suspend Mr. Glassey for two weeks falls within this

Working Group Chairs need significant latitude in managing off-topic
postings to working group mail lists, because off-topic posts can
disrupt the working group. It is difficult to handle off-topic posts
according to strict rules, because some digressions are harmless and
some are beneficial (e.g. when a scope-expanding proposal is accepted).
Working Group Chairs judge when postings are disruptively off-topic.
Some ideas and guidance for Working Group Chairs can be found here:

A participant has many recourses when a discussion is ruled off-topic:
- ask briefly for broad support for the discussion, which if found
might change the chair's decision,
- document a proposal in I-D form in sufficient detail to convince
other participants of the proposal's feasibility and merit,
- raise an issue during IETF Last Call on an IETF-wide mail list,
- start a new mailing list.

In this specific case, the IESG recommends that Mr. Glassey write up any
proposals he wants the IETF to consider as Internet-Drafts before the
IPR Working Group documents reach IETF Last Call. Over the years
several people have told Mr. Glassey that his proposals will not be
considered seriously unless he writes them down in sufficient detail to

It is the IESG's understanding that the IPR Working Group has already
reached a consensus incompatible with the direction Mr. Glassey would
like the IETF to take. Continuing to bring up his direction as part of
other ongoing discussions in the IPR Working Group is likely to be
disruptive and unlikely to advance Mr. Glassey's cause.

The appeal and its suggestion of disciplinary action for Harald
Alvestrand are denied.