On 10 Mar 2020, at 18:34, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 03:07:53PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mar 10, 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.
The case I felt went really badly was the TLS DNSSEC extension.
I agree and while that case was bad, what’s worse is that no
post-mortem was done here. I don’t think the IETF as an
organization
will take any lesson from this, and that in itself makes it likely
the
same mistakes will be made again.
+1.
Perhaps we need a procedure for lodging complaints that aren't
appeals,
and which result in a review and report.
Adding a "report back" step to the less formal part of RFC 2026 6.5.1
would probably be a good practice. I know I did do this when an issue
was "semi-formally" brought to my attention some years ago.
So there was no question of appeal, really.
I think also because in the appeal some of the same actors would
appear.
The whole point of an appeal is to get the IETF chair, or the IAB, to
step in. The route to appeal was mooted by the WG's choice to abandon
the work item.
Again, remember that there's a less formal part, before the chair, whole
IESG, or IAB step into the picture. That might have been the appropriate
move in this case.
(A cynic might wonder if that choice was not purposeful, precisely to
allow the original work to continue unimpeded [perhaps] on the ISE
track
with an appeal mooted. I do not believe that was the case.)
As Paul alluded to, it all assume that the ISE accepts the documents. If
not, more fun may occur.
Going back to this thread, when I read the subject of resignation and
the first email, it seemed like I just stumbled across a hallway
fight
- people that demand unreasonable things. I don’t know how this
conflict went from nothing to asking for someone’s resignation but
clearly more people should have been involved earlier to de-escalate
this. maybe that was tried and just not visible here? It would be
good
if there had been some kind of log that could have been referenced so
we could determine why this failed to de-escalate.
+1
Yep.
I wouldn't want to drag the ombudsman into this, but maybe that's the
next best step.
I would refer you to RFC 7776. I don't think this would be in the
ombudsteam's purview. (Not trying to get out of work, really!)
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
