I misunderstood you. I thought that the "almost certain to appeal" meant an
appeal should be accepted now.

But I think there are enough process and other issues with the document to say
that it should have never gotten to Last Call. Particularly, since there hasn't
been a WGLC on this draft, there is a process failure that indicates that it
shouldn't be in Last Call.

The assertion by certain IESG members that one should overlook scientific fraud
discredits their integrity, and to some extent discredits the integrity of the
IESG by association. But when the IESG accepts such assertions with full
knowledge, then the integrity of the IESG is certainly discredited.

I think it also incumbent on the IESG not to accept Last Call comments on a
document that it already knows is based on a scientific fraud. The IESG has
known this for at least 3 months, which raises some questions:

Is there a lax attitude by the IESG about scientific fraud?
Is a majority of the IESG (not just a coupld IESG members) directly
involved in promoting the fraud?
How is it that a known, fraudulent document got to Last Call?

--Dean

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:

> >>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> writes:
>
> Dean> It has been a week since this appeal was made, yet it does
> Dean> not appear on the IESG appeals page. What is the delay?
>
> Dean, in response to my message, you explicitly told me that we did
> not need to consider this as an appeal but instead could consider it
> as last call comments and that you could appeal if the document is
> approved and you are still unsatisfied. (Hopefully you won't need to
> do that.) If you'd like to chat on the phone about how the process
> works, I'd be happy to do that.
>
> I can dig out the message if there is any confusion, but it was the
> last message you sent to me that I interpreted this way.
>
>
>
> So, what does it mean for us to consider your message as a last call
> comment? First, there are a few steps in which we probably already know what will happen. Roughly, it means that the working group needs to think
> about your message if they have not already done so. In this case, I
> suspect they have already formed an opinion. so, I'd expect the
> chairs of the WG to respond to your message. I expect they will
> probably disagree with the points you make.
>
>
> David will then consider your message and their response. He could
> pull the document from IESG consideration if he believes there are
> issues that need to be addressed. I suspect though that in this case
> he'll bring the document to the full IESG.
>
>
> The IESG will then have to consider the whole situation. Each IESG
> member is expected to enter a position on the document. I'm quite
> certain that we all consider last call issues very seriously. I know
> that I will plan to understand both sides of this issue and make as
> informed of a decision as I can.
>
> IESG members can enter in blocking comments that indicate changes that
> need to be made to a document before it is approved. Take a look at
> http://www.iettf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-02.txt
> for a document explaining how this works.
>
> The best way to keep track of the state of a document is to look at
> the data tracker. Take a look at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi to see the data
> tracker; you can search for the anycast document and see that it is in
> last call and see the publication request. If David should choose to
> take the document to the full IESG, you will see him issue a ballot
> there and you will see the document placed on an IESG agenda. Then
> you can see ballot positions as they are entered.
>
> --Sam
>
>
>

--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000