On Thursday, July 20, 2006 01:04:39 PM -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result", if there wasn't
first an appeal on actual substance that didn't result in the
appropriate outcome.
But, technically, I would not expect the appeal to the IESG/IAB and
the one to the ISOC to be exactly the same. In the former case, the
appeal is presumably on actual decisions and actions made in WGs, by
the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about
the process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all
parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated
in 2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the
original appeal.
On this we might agree (though I think this is something different than
what Brian and Sam are saying): You can read "Further recourse..." to
mean that you can't appeal a process on the grounds of fairness unless
you have been affected by that process. But I think we also agree that
you don't bring the question of fairness of the process to IESG/IAB, but
straight to ISOC: The appeal you bring to the IESG/IAB is different from
the one you bring to ISOC.
On 7/20/06 at 11:12 AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
reading not yours.
OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that we read it like you and
Brian. Let's ask some questions: If I think that the way technical
choices are made in a WG is unfair, do I bring that to the WG chair to
adjudicate first? That's what I would do under 6.5.1. Or, since it is a
procedural question, do I bring it straight to the IESG chair as 6.5.2
requires me to do? Do WG process questions (as defined in 6.5.1) go to
the IESG chair (as defined in 6.5.2)?
No, not while they're still "questions". The section you are reading
describes the appeals process; it doesn't come into play until there is
something to appeal _and_ you feel it's worth doing so. For example, if
you don't like what's going on in a working group, you can take your issues
to the chair, or to the responsible AD. If the problem is that you think
the chair has made a specific decision in which process was violated and
which resulted in a bad outcome, you can appeal that. If the problem is
that you think the chair is abusing process and that a bad outcome might
result, you can go to the responsible AD and ask them to tell the chair to
shape up or be removed. But that's not part of the appeals process; it's
management.
I can't figure out how to read the the first paragraph of 6.5.1
(especially the last sentence) and the first paragraph of 6.5.2 and come
up with an explanation where the procedures for 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3
are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. And nowhere
in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it to the IESG or
IAB.
I think the problem comes from assuming that because 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 are
clearly separate paths, then 6.5.3 must also be a separate path, rather
than a follow-on to 6.5.2. The document is structured rather confusingly,
but I've always read it Brian's way, too. And, I don't see any harm in
having something go through the lower levels first, particularly since the
usual case is that someone doesn't like a decision, appeals it, and then
doesn't like the way the appeal was handled.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf