--On Monday, 24 July, 2006 07:07 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> I commend draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00 as an attempt to
>> rethink this area. People who are interested in this topic
>> should probably study it.
>
> Yes, it's interesting. With a mandatory "attempt of peaceful
> settlement", probably a good idea. But I won't subscribe to
>
> | Participants in the IETF are deemed to agree to these
> | procedures in full and final settlement of such disputes.
Yes, that one bothered me too, perhaps for different reasons and
perhaps not. From my point of view, there has to be an
opportunity for a more judicial/ legalistic process somewhere.
If we want to see appeals as part of a cooperative, potentially
multi-step, reconsideration model, then it becomes even more
important to move the judicial proceedings elsewhere. And
trying to ban them simply won't work, although I would predict
that someone who resulted to the courts and lost would find him
or herself rather throughly shunned in the IETF thereafter...
not as a matter of procedure or rule, but as a matter of
predictable human behavior and reactions.
> Also interesting is "deciding to issue a Last Call cannot be
> the subject of the DRP". That misses the point of a decision
> NOT to issue a last call, e.g. whith the known caee of two
> mutually exclusive documents. So that clause is no progress
> in relation to 2026, it's only clearer.
I tend to agree on this too, or at least I think I do. I don't
see it as desirable to permit appeals on the decision to issue a
Last Call, since I believe that the IESG should be able to Last
Call substantially anything to get clear community input. But I
believe that, in general, if an AD, or the IESG, as a whole, is
asked to issue a Last Call and declines to do so, that decision
should be subject to appeal. And, if the IESG wants to see
that "in general" narrowed --as I think it should be-- then they
should be generating, or convincing someone else to generate-- a
clear statement about the conditions under which Last Calls will
and will not be issued and get community consensus behind that
statement.
>...
>> draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (long expired) was intended to
>> make it easier for the IAB or IESG to identify problems in
>> their own environment that were linked to individuals and
>> initiate a community process to solve them.
>
> s/community/Nomcom eligible/ - the recall stuff is restricted
> to the paying members.
There are two issues in this. The first is that we have active
participants (and contributors) in the IETF who do not attend
meetings. There were good reasons to exclude them from Nomcoms,
but it is less clear that they should be excluded from recall
activities... Except that it is hard to identify them in a clear
way and that, rather than "paying" was an important reason for
the Nomcom criterion
The second and far more important, IMO, is that, at present,
members of the IAB and IESG --who "pay" with not only
registration fees but with considerable time devoted to the IETF
-- cannot participate in requesting a recall because they cannot
serve on Nomcoms. Their exclusion from Nomcoms was intended to
prevent a number of obvious possible abuses, but it is not clear
that the same principles apply to recall petitions. My own
belief is that, when the "Nomcom eligible" rule was applied to
recalls, the IAB and IESG members were excluded as an unintended
side-effect. Certainly I recall no community discussion about
whether that exclusion was wise and/or necessary. What that
draft proposed was eliminating the restriction.
>> draft-klensin-chair-empowerment-01
>
> Apparently not yet available, looking into -00: A duel, good
> idea. Add an enforced delay, a week or so, it's too easy to
> do something stupid.
A delay would probably be a good idea, but I don't see an
obvious way to start the timer. I suppose the Chair could
propose that action to the Nomcom Chair and the Nomcom Chair
could wait a week before doing anything, then ask the Chair if
he or she was still serious and notify the relevant IESG member
to see if any other action was likely to be forthcoming before
presenting the question to the Nomcom. Is that what you had in
mind?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf