Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]