At 1:16 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote: >Ted: > >With great respect, I must disagree. The appeal says: "It is the position of the appellants that this removal violates the IETF process by which working groups are governed." This say to me that the appellants believe that Cullen Jennings violated IETF process by replacing the GEOPRIV WG Co-chairs at the time that he did so. I personally reread many BCPs as part of this appeal review, and I could not find any process that was violated by this action. Russ, With equal respect, that statement is part of a much larger context, and I think your reading is too narrow. The immediately prior paragraph says, to take one piece of context out: >In summary, the Co-chairs of the GEOPRIV working group conferred via telephone with >Cullen Jennings regarding irregularities of the GEOPRIV session at IETF 68. Mr. >Jennings participated in the discussion (detailed below) and at the very end of the >call, indicated that he desired to remove the Co-chairs. This was interpreted as a >type of threat. The Co-chairs then published a message to the GEOPRIV mailing list >describing the irregularities of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68, specifically in order >to ensure that IETF process would be followed for the WG. Following this message, >Mr. Jennings sent a strongly worded message to the IETF list, and he removed the >Co-Chairs. This removal occurred during the time period when the Co-chairs were >seeking mailing list consensus on the items discussed during the GEOPRIV session at >IETF 68. The working group chairs are charged in our process with determining consensus of working groups. If an AD removed working group chairs *in order to ensure that a specific determination were made*, that would clearly be contrary to the way the IETF is meant to work, no matter what the AD's baseline prerogatives for determining personnel would be. (Note that I am not saying that this what happened here, but this is a point where the issue raised would be salient). That action would be fundamentally a violation of the process for determining working group consensus, as the AD would be ensuring a specific consensus call by putting in someone willing to make that determination. An appeal response by the IESG that said that they did not believe that this is what happened in this case seems to be what you intended (at least based on Sam's response). I must repeat, however, that this response appeared to me to focus instead on the baseline prerogative of the AD over that issue. >You are correct that any action taken by an AD can be appealed. In particular, RFC 2026 states: > > All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public > knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged. > >In this particular appeal, there is a lot of background information that describes events that happened outside of the two month window. These can only be taken as context for the actions under appeal. I appreciate your restatement of the important point that any action taken by an AD can be appealed, as well as Sam's personal statement to the same effect. If you are not willing to consider re-stating this appeal, a short statement by the IESG to that effect would be welcome. As it stands, statements by individual IESG members have no binding effect on later IESGs and the community is not necessarily notified when the interpretations change. As a concrete suggestion: "The IESG re-affirms that its reading of RFC 2026 is that any action made by an Area Director or the IESG may by made the subject of the conflict resolution mechanisms set out in Section 6.5 of RFC 2026. The IESG further wishes to highlight that the primary aim of the appeals mechanism set out there is to resolve conflicts and move the IETF as a whole towards consensus, and it urges all participants to approach them in that light." regards, Ted >Russ > > >At 11:49 AM 9/21/2007, Ted Hardie wrote: >>I believe this response (I hope inadvertently) appears to remove a valuable >>principle by which the IESG acted on appeals. >> >>I urge the IESG to reconsider the formulation of its response to the appeal >>to clarify the issues raised below. >> >> >>At 2:01 PM -0400 9/20/07, The IESG wrote: >>>IESG Response to the Appeal Against the Removal of the Co-chairs of the >>>GEOPRIV Working Group >>> >>> >>>Introduction >>> >>> This is the IESG response to the appeal by Randall Gellens, Allison >>> Mankin, and Andy Newton posted at: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/IESG_Appeal_20070622-final.pdf >>> >>> Cullen Jennings recused from all discussion of this appeal. >>> >>> The appeal raises three major points for the IESG to address: >>> >>> 1. The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process; >>> >>> 2. The actions taken interfered with the consensus process; and >>> >>> 3. There is a conflict of interest. >>> >>> The appeal also proposes a remedy. This response includes some >>> comments about the proposed remedy. >>> >>>1. The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process >>> >>> RFC 2418 says: >>> >>> Working groups require considerable care and feeding. In addition >>>to >>> general participation, successful working groups benefit from the >>> efforts of participants filling specific functional roles. The Area >>> >>> Director must agree to the specific people performing the WG Chair, >>> >>> and Working Group Consultant roles, and they serve at the >>>discretion >>> of the Area Director. >>> >>> Since all WG chairs "serve at the discretion of the Area Director," >>> they can be replaced at any time. The previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs >>> were told about their removal in private before the public >>> announcement. This action was not required, but it is the most >>> polite way to handle the situation. Perhaps the public announcement >>> could have provided some rationale, but the authority to remove a WG >>> chair is clear. >> >>In this response, the IESG appears to have read the appeal to state that the >>removal of the chairs was not within the authority of the Area Director. >> >>The appeal statement: >> >>http://www3.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/IESG_Appeal_20070622-final.pdf >> >>does not support this reading. It does not say that Area Directors >>do not have the right to remove chairs, it says that the manner >>and timing by which this was done interfered with the consensus process >>inappropriately. The remainder of the IESG statement below appears >>to attempt to address the interference issue. But in choosing to highlight >>that all "WG chairs serve at the discretion of the Area Director", >>the IESG appears to be saying that the personnel decisions of >>an Area Director or the IESG are not subject to appeal. >> >>During the time I served on the IESG, it was a general guideline that >>*any decision* of an Area Director or the IESG was subject to appeal >>to the IESG. While this is a broad reading of RFC 2026, Section 6.5, >>I think it is an important point and a principle worth retaining. The >>appeals process in the IETF is not simply a mechanism for establishing >>who has what rights; it is a mechanism for conflict resolution. By >>making all decisions subject to it, we ensure that conflicts which arise >>are dealt with as early as possible and with as little process as possible. >> >>If members of the community believe that a personnel decision >>was made in a way the interfered with the proper operation of the >>IETF, I believe asking the IESG to attempt to resolve the conflict is >>an appropriate thing to do. This appeal response, which re-asserts the >>authority of the AD to make the original decision, does not seem >>to support this use of the IETF's normal conflict resolution mechanism. >>Further, this appeal response appears to say that the only conflict resolution >>mechanism open to those who disagree with a personnel decision >>is to invoke one of the removal mechanisms for those who made it. >> >>I hope that the IESG will re-structure its response to this appeal >>to re-affirm that the conflict resolution mechanisms of the IETF are >>available for this purpose. I also encourage the IESG (and, frankly, >>the IETF community as a whole) to try to see the appeals process >>as a way of resolving conflict, rather than a quasi-legal process for determining >>whether a remedy will be granted. I understand how previous appeals >>have pushed everyone in that direction, but it is something we must >>continue to resist. I have worked with Allison, Andy, and Randy for >>many years, as well as Cullen and Jon. They are all experienced >>IETF folks who have toiled for years to make things work; forcing them >>into even more adversarial positions when conflicts do need resolution >>is a mistake, at least I see it. >> >>My thanks for your attention, >> regards, >> Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf