Hi Paul,
At 06:48 AM 11-03-2020, Paul Wouters wrote:
I think you're probably right. I know I've chaired in the past when
I didn't see the signs of bad things happening and failed to get
out in front of it. But the appeal, even if fruitless in the end,
would have at least made the chair, the AD, and IESG do a bit of
post-mortem to figure out what went wrong, so we should figure out
some way to make them less painful (as per your last paragraph).
In this case, going via the ISE is a fine solution, provided this path
isn't suddently blocked in the future before publication of the
document, and providing the ISE agrees to publish. I have no idea what
we would have to do procedurally, if the ISE path fails for some reason.
As we cannot really appeal the ISE decision, we'd have to go back to the
WG for an appeal, which also seems to not be the right place.
That publication path might work. However, it does not fix the
systemic problem. I did not include some points from your message,
e.g. reduced participation due to demotivation.
The point which Pete was making is that disputes are part of the
process and it is expected that there are adequate procedures in
place to ensure appropriate resolution of issue(s).
Some time back, I went through a working group mailing list to try
and identify what went wrong. The turning point, i.e. one or more
decision which might explain why things went wrong, was not
clear. I'd say that I should have raised a concern instead of going
along with the decision.
Writing an appeal is more difficult than writing an IETF RFC. As a
point of information, there was an appeal about an ISE decision
[1]. As such, there is evidence that there is a procedure which is
applicable as a remedy.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2019/02/20190131-Independent-Submission-Process-Appeal.pdf
