Sam,
For whatever it is worth, I could not agree more with your
formulation. Although you have stated it better than I have, I
think our conclusions are much the same: trying to formalize all
of this and write into formal text just gets us tied into more
knots and risks edge cases and abuses that could be quite
problematic. At the same time, if the community --and the IAOC
and IAD-- don't accept and follow the general principles you
have described, we are in a degree of trouble that formal
appeals procedures probably won't fix.
And I don't think that is "...mostly at nothing".
best,
john
--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 22:44 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's
> text with Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close
> to something I would be happy with.
>
> I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized
> that most of what I want does not require formalism or
> requires very little formalism. In particular, I'm happy to
> live with a system in which decisions are not overturned
> except by the IAOC (although I like In addition, I think
> requiring requests for appeal/review to be acted on when they
> are simply arguing that decision is bad instead of that
> decisions did not follow written procedures/rules would be
> open to abuse.
>
>
> Here is what I want in addition to Margaret's formulation. I
> want to see if I can get agreement on these (I suspect the
> answer will be yes) before working on text. IT may turn out
> that the BCP is the wrong place for such text.
>
> * The IAOC can choose to overturn or otherwise act to reverse a
> decision if it believes that is the best course of action to
> follow. Examples include changing procedures if they happen
> not to work very well or attempting to buy out or terminate
> a contract if it is clear that the contract is no longer in
> the IASA's best interest.
>
> * Members of the IAOC may take into account comments from the
> community and may decide to reconsider a decision based on
> such comments even if no formal requirement to review the
> decision or to respond to the comments exists. In other
> words if the community convinces the IAOC they were wrong,
> it is reasonable for the IAOC to go do something about it.
>
> * The IAOC should listen to comments. By this I mean that
> they should be aware of comments they are receiving and
> weight them according to their value. It's fine to ignore
> pointless comments; probably even fine to pay less attention
> to comments from people who have a track record of not
> providing useful input. It would not be desirable for the
> IAOC to have completely ignored a constructive,
> well-reasoned comment simply because there was no formal
> obligation to respond to the comment. (The IAOC still might
> not respond, but someone should have at least read the
> comment and considered what it said)
>
> * It is reasonable for individuals, groups or organized bodies
> to comment to the community and the IAOC on IAOC decisions.
> For example if the IAOC selected a meeting sight according
> to its criteria and the IESG noticed that many working
> group chairs and document authors were unwilling to come to
> this sight, it would be reasonable for the IESG to inform
> the IAOC of this observation. Depending on costs of
> canceling a meeting, it might (although probably would not)
> be reasonable for the IESG to ask the IAOC to reconsider.
>
>
>
> When I phrase things this way instead of in thinking about
> them in the context of formal appeals and reviews, they become
> stunningly obvious at least for me. If these things are not
> true, I don't think we are living up to an open transparent
> process receptive to the needs of the IETF community. On the
> other hand, these things are sufficiently obvious that perhaps
> nothing needs to be said about them. There is one area where
> text might be useful.
>
> I'd feel more comfortable if we added text encouraging members
> of the community with comments about decisions to make those
> comments to the community at large and/or the IAOC even if
> their comments did not meet the criteria for formal
> review/appeal.
>
>
> Sorry to run such a long chase and end up back mostly at
> nothing.
>
> --Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf