Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:02 PM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> FWIW, Mike and I are in agreement here.  I think the FO process is a DoS
> attack vector if it can slow down the group (or forcibly keep FO warnings
> in the ES), when that drive for consensus should have been handled earlier
> in the process.  I'm (a little more than Mike) okay with keeping it in the
> process, but if it is used more than 0.000001% of the time, this is a
> failure.
>

Not a proposal, more of a question:

If it is a technical issue, shouldn't the appeal be made to the TAG, not
the director? This is in effect how IETF works — it is the IAB that is the
ultimate appeal on any technical grounds.

If it is a process issue, that should't that appeal being made to the
director? That makes sense to me.

This addresses both "drive for consensus should have been handled earlier
in the process" and that a single person has to make a technical decision.

-- Christopher Allen