>>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> writes:

Dean, here I'm speaking as an individual and I suspect some IESG
members may agree with me and others may disagree.

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

So, when there are two paths to resolving an issue--one
confrontational and one reasonably cordial we try and choose the
cordial path. Last call can be used to resolve almost any issue
including the issue of whether a document was incorrectly submitted to
last call. In other words last call is for process failures as well
as technical problems.

An appeal takes a long time to deal with and is an incredibly formal
and legalistic process.

The IESG does not consider appeal comments any more seriously than
serious last call comments, so asking us to treat this as an appeal
does not add more weight to your arguments it simply takes more time for us.

I agree with you that documents based on false scientific claims
should not be published until the correctness of the document is
verified using some mechanism that does not depend on these false
claims. If the document is incorrect, it should be fixed. Please
help all of us do that.

Dean> But I think there are enough process and other issues with
Dean> the document to say that it should have never gotten to Last
Dean> Call.

That may be the case.

The IESG can conclude that a document incorrectly made it to last
call. Normally that happens because we realize a mistake was made.
It could happen because we realize that an IESG member or WG chair
intentionally subverted the process; if that happened it would be a
very serious realization. I think we all like to try and avoid making
such determinations; we would rather fix documents than assign blame
to individuals. I understand that you have made such a claim in this
instance. I take no position on that claim because I have not
researched it enough to have an informed opinion.

Dean> Particularly, since there hasn't been a WGLC on this
Dean> draft, there is a process failure that indicates that it
Dean> shouldn't be in Last Call.

You know, I used to think that working group drafts needed WG last
calls. I wish they did. However it turns out if you look at section
7.4 of RFC 2418, WG last calls are not required. Section 7.5 of RFC
2418 does require that the WG determine there is rough consensus to
publish a draft. Without a WG last call it is usually difficult to
make this determination. If a draft were forwarded to the IESG
without a wg last call, then it would be easier to claim that there
were not consensus. Note, however that there does seem to be a WG
last call on the 02 version of the draft ; I point to a message below
where you claim you made comments against the draft during that last
call.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00460.html

Perhaps you are concerned that there was no last call on 03 (I don't
know if such a last call happened.) You even admitted that the WG
decision was made in
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html . What has
happened since then? (This is a serious question on my part) Did it
have something to do with the research you claimed was discredited?

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

I agree that it would be inappropriate for the IESG to publish a
document without carefully considering allegations of fraud. We have
not done so. We will consider your allegations. You can help us do
so by engaging in a constructive dialogue and helping people like me
who don't understand the situation do so.

We may have questions; if so, we'd appreciate your help answering
them.

We should no more blindly accept assertions of fraud than we should
ignore these assertions. That means we cannot simply take your word
that there is fraud. Instead, we have to go look at it and make up our opinions.
We must do that before we approve the document.
But it is reasonable for us to conduct a last call and to collect evidence for both sides of the issue during the last call.

Please help us do our job by helping us understand your claims and
respecting that we'll ask those who disagree with you to state their
case too.

Dean> I think it also incumbent on the IESG not to accept Last
Dean> Call comments on a document that it already knows is based
Dean> on a scientific fraud.
Here we disagree. As I said I think it critical that the IESG not
approve a document without considering claims of fraud. However it is
never unreasonable under our process for us to accept comments.

Dean> The IESG has known this for at least
Dean> 3 months, which raises some questions:

When did the IESG learn of the fraud? I must have missed that message
as the first I heard of this issue was when you filed your appeal.
Again, I'm being serious not sarcastic. I get a lot of mail and I
might have missed a message on this issue.

Now it may well be that David and possibly other IESG members knew
about your claims of fraud. However an IESG member knowing something
is not the same as the IESG knowing something. You may believe (and
even be right) that IESG members have an obligation to tell the rest
of the IESG about claims of fraud and that by not doing so the IESG is
culpable for the actions of its members.

Thanks for your cooperation,

--Sam