Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Indeed, I wonder if we have gone too far in limiting the power of appeal in this version (see others' comments).
I personally think that we have gone too far.
I don't think that we want to set-up a situation where the only way the community can speak forcefully if it doesn't like an IAOC decision is to recall people... That is too high a bar of entry for expressing community disagreement with the decisions/conduct of a (set of) individual(s) regarding a single incident.
Personally, I think that the concern about DoS attacks is unfounded. We don't require multiple signatures for appeal of WG decisions, and that hasn't resulted in DoS attacks... I hope that more IETF folks will continue to feel passionately about the standards process than about administrative decisions.
I think that we need both some attention to the "DoS attack" as well as appeals process without having to recall people.
And, I think that we could say something to address the concern about contract signing, etc. Maybe: In cases where appeals concern legally-binding actions of the IAOC (hiring, signed contracts, etc.), the bodies handling the appeal may advise the IAOC, but are not authorized to make or unmake any legally binding agreements on the part of IASA. This is similar to the wording that doesn't allow the IAB to approve a document as part of an appeal response.
This text looks good, and solves both concerns.
--Jari
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf