At 03:39 03-07-2013, William McCall wrote:
I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty
hilarious stuff in there. I feel this contributor's frustration
though (even though the IESG is right).
The decision of the respected members of the IESG was
predictable. There may be a minor issue. I cannot comment about that.
The appellant mentioned that he worked hard and he has been
excluded. In my opinion any other contributor might be frustrated in
similar circumstances. The IETF is a place of many
misunderstandings. Maybe one day something good will come out of all that.
At 09:54 03-07-2013, Toerless Eckert wrote:
To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has
for providing recognition
to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as
recognition for that contribution
is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it
will negatively impact
the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see.
Unless a contributor has
a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts,
its most likely not worth
their time to fight / improve documents without better means of
recognition than how its
defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing
recognition for their contribution
to their employer/sponsor.
Yes.
There are more incentives not to perform a critical review of a draft
instead of doing the reverse. If contributors operate solely for
business reasons it can lead to IETF structural issues.
At 11:10 03-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that
:-)
appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of
them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.
Yes.
come to the formal attention of the full IESG. If an issue is
appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the
IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory
resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in
every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not
Agreed.
Sometimes a gesture of goodwill is all that it takes.
Regards,
-sm