--On Monday, 16 October, 2006 14:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > (1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
> > triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
> > vexatious appellant. People who are entering their
> > first appeals don't trigger it. People whose last
> > appeal was successful, even in part (that would need to
> > be defined, of course, and that might not be easy) don't
> > trigger it. The only folks who need to look for
> > supporters are those who have appealed before and whose
> > appeals have been rejected as without merit.
>
> That's roughly why I put a section in
> draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes
> called "Single Dispute per Topic." We certainly need to create
> a
> disincentive to repetitious appeals IMHO. Requiring supporters
> may be a way to do that. John raises good points in his
> message.
Hmm. Brief reflecting on this comment suggests something else
in line with my comment above. I would see it as much more
reasonable to require supporters, endorsement, or even requiring
that a second party generate the formal appeal if an appeal is
lodged with the IESG, the IESG says "no, and without merit", and
the person involved wants to appeal to the IAB.
The trick here, I think, is to try to keep the number of appeals
that are either designed to create disruption or that have that
effect to a minimum while recognizing that it is very much in
the interest of the IETF to have an easily-exercised appeal
process for those who are acting in good faith to try to reverse
a misunderstanding, oversight, or process abuse that could not
be handled at an earlier stage. One might even want to
separate the rules for technical appeals from those applicable
to appeals about process or abusive behavior, especially abusive
behavior at the WG level (i.e., without IESG members being
directly involved) and create a slightly higher bar for the
latter after ADs and the IETF Chair conclude there is no
problem... or maybe not.
Again, I think there are tradeoffs here but that we need to try
to understand the kinds of appeals we really want to have, and
have quickly and efficiently. And then, whatever else we do, we
should be sure we don't create unintentional obstructions to
those types of appeals as side effects of making repeated and
disruptive abuses more difficult.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf