--On torsdag, desember 23, 2004 04:14:58 -0500 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 21:51 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John,
I've probably seen enough versions of enough issues that I'm more than a little spaced out...... but I think your proposal looks very much like the in-draft version of the appeals procedure, with three differences:
- Not limited to procedure, and not limited to the IAOC - Abandoning the "chain" model of "if you don't like one decision, try again" that the current appeal structure has - Not using the word "appeal"
I like all of those properties, and it should be a small twist of language (starting from the text in the draft, not the most recent suggestion) to make it come out that way. But I'm not sure I'm reading your words correctly, so better double-check....
A fascinating question, actually. I think you are reading my words correctly and that, by happy coincidence, the words that are now in the draft are fairly easily adapted.
But the principles are more important than the words, and I think this is a profound change in principles. It is, I think, a significant change to say "if you expect the IAOC model to succeed,
* the IETF has got to keep its hands off the day-to-day decisions, even when they seem wrong * the IESG and IAB need to be prohibited structurally from micromanaging, or managing at all, beyond the degree that the IAOC wants to permit. They supply input, they make requests, but decisions rest on the IAOC side of the wall and stay there, with the only _real_ recourse being to fire the IAOC
and then to figure out a way to implement those principles.
Actually, I think we have agreement on those principles, and have mostly been struggling with how to express them.
Appeals procedures (under whatever name) are procedures that should exist so that if someone thinks something's gone really wrong, it's possible to get it noticed and talked about - and, if it's necessary, corrected.
Trying to manage anything by routine appeals is totally broken.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf