Re: [IAB] Appeal: Independent Submission Editor declination of draft-darley-cvss-v5-skull-emoji-01

For the benefit of all, this was an April 1st candidate that was 
declined because the text could have been perceived to make fun of 
another organization, and I thought it best that we poke fun at 
ourselves and not others.  I welcome community feedback on this or any 
other publication decision.

Eliot

On 17.04.2026 18:46, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Dear IAB,
>
> I'm always a bit disappointed when leadership (be it a WG Chair, AD, 
> IESG, or IAB) rejects a complaint on purely procedural grounds, 
> particularly in cases where they could have reasonably interpreted the 
> complaint in a different and rational way. In this case, while it is 
> certainly true that there is no formal "appeal" path for rejections 
> from the ISE, there is a path for "IAB review" (as you cited in your 
> decision not to process). The appellant did say specifically, "I am 
> requesting that the IAB review the ISE's stated grounds for 
> declination...". You could have reasonably interpreted their appeal as 
> a request for IAB review. At that point, you could have simply 
> declined to do the review for whatever reasons you wished because, as 
> 4846 says, "the IAB is not obligated to perform that review", or you 
> could have done the review but reminded the author that 4846 
> continues, "nor is the RFC Editor obligated to publish it, even with a 
> favorable IAB review". By saying you have decided not to process the 
> appeal instead of interpreting it as a request for review, you are 
> effectively telling the author that they should re-word their appeal 
> as a request for IAB review, which as far as I can tell would be a 
> hoop-jumping exercise.
>
> The Principle of Charity [1] would have gone a long way here, and the 
> outcome would have been no different AFAICT.
>
> pr
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
>
>