In thinking about the process complaints process :-) we should be careful to not just consider the current step but also steps a bit further forward. If you think about the full scope of the transition, there will be some number of people that will disagree. As we expand the circle of people commenting on this, and as we get further away from the current core group of people who know this stuff reasonably well, in those further steps we are likely to run into mistaken assumptions and maybe even some that disagree on principle. As we run an open process, it is important that we keep the “broad agreement is what matters” principle in our minds, and do not set ourselves up for doing a lot of work if anyone in the world asks us to. Re-opening of a debate lost in a earlier in the consensus process is a real danger*. I think the key aspects of looking at complaints of any sort are checking (a) whether the process was run as needed and (b) whether the specific issue was is in scope and whether it was considered. The former is something that we can do in a general sense, as opposed to running an investigation on every point someone isn’t in agreement. The latter is hopefully relatively quick, unless we indeed spot something that was not considered. Jari *) In the IETF we have some experience of appeals processes, and one of the challenges in that process is that you have to balance making sure that you’ve not made a mistake with accidentally giving too much weight to one opinion over the community opinion. Just because some one screams “appeal” does not mean that we have to give more weight to the opinion. We have to look at all opinions with the same weight, and if we missed an issue and that is raised in an appeal, we need to fix it. But otherwise, appeals are not a way for a person to change informed community consensus.