On 17:15 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for either or both of 1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute mediator.
Certainly a way to defuse some issues. This can be to settle a dispute. This can be to address COI. Technical COI cannot be avoided and they may help progressing. But the IETF is for all. So the Ombudsman should be in a position to evaluate and block the propositions building exclusives, as a real Denial of IETF Services to some needs.
It could also be a report to IESG/IAB, or granting a "minority position" status. The aim is to first to stop the noise over the opponent's supposed noise. If the Ombudman accept that the opponent's contribution is genuine, he will not be obliged to address all the trolls fired at him. The noise over his contributions will disapear. People interested in debating the opponents positions will be able to do it in public, this can only help a more serious consensus.
jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf