Appeal Re: grow: Last Call: 'Operation of Anycast Services' to BCP (draft-ietf-grow-anycast)
Registered with IESG June 2, 2006. Original Appeal
Amended June 14, 2006 Amended Appeal
IESG Response July 10, 2006 IESG Response to Appeal of draft-ietf-grow-anycast
Confusion over draft-ietf-grow-anycast Document version numbering. In some instances there is a confusion over draft numbering. Document version 02 was submitted by Abley on October 19, 2005, but mistakenly described as version 03. This mistake was corrected by Abley on October 21, 2005.
Sam Hartman is Ted T'so supervisor at MIT. See Ted T'so Professional Dishonesty
This discussion is not publicly available from the IESG. It is made available to illumuniate the activities, statements, approach to problems, and breach of duties.
June 2, 2006 Initial Complaint
June 2, 2006 Lucy Lynch provides links to GROW November discussion
June 2, 2006 Lucy Lynch Correction
June 2, 2006 Correction by Anderson
June 3, 2006 Carpenter Refuses Complaint
June 3, 2006 Hartman says he is confused and that Appeals make people grumpy
June 4, 2006 Kessens says that Anderson accepted Consensus in November. Asserts disruption, has issue with "tone" of Anderson's message.
June 5, 2006 Anderson rebutts Kessens
June 5, 2006 Anderson clarifies for Carpenter
June 5, 2006 Anderson clarifies for Hartman
June 5, 2006 Hartman "cajoles" Hartman uses double meaning: He uses the same terms for the grounds for Appeal that Anderson used in the appeal, and Hartman avoids mentioning the word "Last Call Comment", and Hartment appears to consent and agree with Anderson.
June 6, 2006 Anderson responds to Hartman. Anderson misses the double meaning of Hartman's comments. Note there is no mention of "Last Call Commnt" in Anderson's message. Note also the term "process failure".
June 6, 2006 Huston considers Anderson's IESG Appeal but as a GROW Working Group Appeal. Strangely, Huston is not as confused as Carpenter and Hartman.
June 6, 2006 Anderson responds to Huston's rejection.
June 6, 2006 Anderson expands response to Huston's rejection
June 9, 2006 Anderson wonders about status of complaint
June 9, 2006 Hartman says Anderson accepted resolution of complaint as "Last Call Comment" States that Anderson "explicitly accepted" consideration of Last Call Comment on June 6th. Hartman also continues selling the idea of Last Call Comments.
June 9, 2006 Anderson Responds to Hartman. Anderson politely indicates that he misunderstood Hartman on June 6.
June 9, 2006 Anderson offers a compromise
June 9, 2006 Hartman says Appeals are confrontational There are a number of assertions in this message. Hartman also asserts that Anderson accepted Last Call in December. Hartman asserts that he wasn't aware of any fraud assertions. In fact, Hartman participated in the March 8, 2006 Response to Appeal of PR-action. In that Appeal, notice of these allegations and supporting evidence was first given. One might also expect that IESG members including Hartman has been questioned by the IAB regarding the April 18th, 2006 Appeal of PR-action
June 11, 2006 Carpenter asserts that Anderson has accepted the "Last Call Comment" approach
June 12, 2006 Hartman says complaint too vague
June 12, 2006 Anderson responds in detail to Hartman
June 12, 2006 Anderson responds to Carpenter's assertion of acceptance
June 12, 2006 Anderson responds to Hartman
June 13, 2006 Hartman on possibilities
June 13, 2006 Carpenter also says complaint too vague
June 13, 2006 Anderson responds to Carpenter
June 13, 2006 Anderson responds again to assert that Carpenter and Kessens should recuse themselves.
June 13, 2006 Anderson Responds to Hartman
June 13, 2006 Anderson Sends Amended Appeal
June 14, 2006 Carpenter says Amended Appeal Received
June 14, 2006 Carpenter says he had no role in WG or in Appeal
June 28, 2006 Hartman on minor changes
June 28, 2006 Abley disputes Appeal
June 28, 2006 Anderson refutes Abley
July 6, 2006 Kessens belatedly invites Anderson to Operations Area Meeting
June 28, 2006 More Abuse by Bush
Amended Appeal