Do we want to institutionalize a review or an appeal?
In the sense I'm using it here, which I think isn't too strange:
- Review means that a body looks at a decision/handling, and tells us why that decision or process was made. That body was already responsible for making the decision - or supervising the person(s) that made the decision.
- Appeal means that you take an issue that is handled by one person or group, and hand it off, with all supporting documentation needed to understand what's going on, and ask that other body to figure out whether the process or the decision was correct in context or not.
Review has no issues with confidentiality (the group is supposed to know the secrets already), and fewer issues with reversal of decisions - the decisions that are possible are already within the power of that group to make. and it knows whether it is committed.
But because it does not move the issue around, it may be seen as "just" a procedure for getting a more public documentation of what was done and why it ws done.
Appeal has the advantage of having new people for a "fresh look". But since it moves the issue around, it requires that documentation go along with it - creating issues with confidentiality. And if the decision is "you really shouldn't have done that", it creates an implicit hierarchy - the body appealed to is put in a position of some kind of power over the other body.
Multiple levels of appeal makes sense. Multiple levels of requesting reviews from the same body does not.
I'm pretty sure Avri talks about appeals, and I think Sam is too. I'm also pretty sure John and I are talking about review (as defined above).
What are the rest of us talking about - what would we prefer, and what would we be able to live with?
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf