I just had a chance to review this, and unfortunately I find myself in complete agreement with Pete on all of the points he makes. Ned
On 9/7/09 at 3:07 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
>At 08:28 AM 9/4/2009, Thomas Narten wrote: >>Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the >>response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it >>doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate. >> >>I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to >>be responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to >>whether the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is >>forthcoming. >> >>Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to >>the appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please >>just move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it. >> >>IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with clarity.
I agree.
>I'm sorry that you read it that way.
I'm sorry, Russ, but I didn't "read it that way." It *is* that way. It does not respond to the specific points and requests in the appeal. Saying that you are sorry that Thomas (and I) "read it that way" comes across as you saying "I'm sorry you were unable to read the true meaning." It's, frankly, a non-apology and a bit condescending.
>The first response that was drafted was a point-by-point reply as >you suggest. It was extremely repetitive, with the same points >being made over and over. I found the reply cumbersome at best. It >was my suggestion that we take the points that were made over and >over in that formulation of the response and structure it this way.
I see nothing in the appeal that would require repetition, which indicates to me that perhaps the Trustees did not actually attempt to answer the points of the appeal, or that the repetetive answers all amounted to "no, we're not going to do that". How about answers to these questions:
On point (i) of the appeal: Will the Trustees cease taking action (except for "emergencies") until minutes are up to date? No answer was specifically given in the reply. If the answer is "yes", the Trustees will need a specific answer to (ii), since I have already seen the posting with regard to the new TLP due to go into effect September 12. Either the Trustees have hereby declared "an emergency", or the answer to point (i) is, "no, we will continue taking actions even though minutes are not up to date."
(For the record, the minutes wherein the decision to post the new TLP was taken are also not posted.)
On point (ii) of the appeal: Have the Trustees found that an emergency exists now (and if so, where is the explanation of that emergency)? In the future, will the Trustees explain to the community when such an emergency exists? I find neither answer in the reply.
On point (iii) of the appeal: Did the Trustees find that a proper Last Call was done on the TLP? Did the Trustees find that changes made to the proposed TLP were small enough as to not warrant a new Last Call? Neither of these questions is answered in the reply.
On point (iv) of the appeal: The reply answers this point, but starts with the sentence "The Trustees were proactive." Please answer the point in the appeal before patting yourselves on the back.
On point (v) of the appeal: The Trustees have not provided the requested "summary and review of comments made on the June 23rd version of that document, their decisions about each comment, and the reasoning for those decisions" as far as I know. Have the Trustees agreed to or rejected this element of the appeal?
On point (vi) of the appeal: Have the Trustees agreed to "treat the authorities granted to themselves by the "Administrative Procedures" document as invalid and without force until that document is updated to contain specific provisions for openness, transparency, and accountability, including the provisions for review outlined above, and the rough consensus approval of the community is obtained for that revision"? I see no answer in the reply.
On point (vii) of the appeal: The reply answers this point in the paragraph which starts, "Second...".
Until the Trustees answer these questions directly, I (like Thomas) do not find the appeal reply adequate.
pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf