On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:54:36AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 11-Mar-20 07:45, Nico Williams wrote: > > If you get left on the rough side of consensus, whether rightly or > > wrongly, and you wish to challenge this, it's really difficult. You > > might have to file an appeal, > > Well yes. There's no way round that - you're on the losing side, which > has been a bad deal throughout human history. But at least there *is* > an appeal process (which in practice there wouldn't be, if we used > majority voting to make decisions). That doesn't indicate bias in > the process. > > > and if you do you'll annoy and anger > > people who want their RFCs published a year ago. > > Again, that doesn't indicate bias in the process. It is a bias in the process. And rightfully so IMO. The point is that to get relief requires sufficient motivation to seek it via an appeal. Q: How many appeals have there been, and how many have succeeded? But perhaps we can do post-mortems as a lighter-weight relief process, where a reversal isn't the goal, but that a) it be determined if there were errors (or perhaps harassment by the people complaining! it goes both ways) and b) some chastisement. > > What I've encountered is that at the limit you have to appeal or give > > up, and how well things go before you get to that stage depends on how > > willing WG chairs and responsible AD are to actively mediate dispute > > resolution. > > Of course. But isn't that exactly why the appeals process exists? To > put pressure on chairs and ADs to mediate? I assure you that it's > much more uncomfortable for them to handle a formal appeal than > to try mediation. But there is a social dynamic. Appeal and become the bad guy, lose good will, lose friends, and find your future participation affected. We're talking about people who must have their RFCs published! > I'll stop there because I have precisely zero knowledge of the case > you cite. That's fair, and it would be best if we didn't discuss it in this thread anyways -- its details are not germane, but that such a case exists in the broad strokes I used to describe it, is germane to the point that the process of obtaining relief is costly and non-trivial. I'd settle for not having that happen again than for getting a do-over with an appeal. Nico --
