Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns.
You seem to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New
Hm... your reply is exactly my concern! Your answer is just based
on "can not understand" and not based on any document or past
history. Therefore, I would like to see more things in written.
Is this by the way how the board in handling appeals?
Who is the current IANA and RFC-Ed (chair/head/whatever)?
I also believe what Klensin wrote is still valid:
[... 22 Feb 1996 ... skipping voting out of existence, fine lunches
and dinners, and irresolvable controversy pronouncements...]
For questions of process, there is really a jury problem, not a
technical or architectural expertise one. The IAB membership
may have no special competence to make decisions on process
matters and, if they were involved in the initial proposals in
any way, they may be contaminated relative to making fair
choices. I suggest that, for process questions, the right
appeals body is a jury-like group that is chosen exactly the way
the Nomcomm is chosen -- volunteers from the IETF participant
pool and then at random, with no sitting IAB or IESG (or, I'd
think, ISOC Trustees) members permitted to volunteer.
I don't have an opinion as to whether we pick an appeals panel
for a year just in case we need them or pick them only when a
sufficient process appeal arises. It is not clear to me that it
makes much difference -- except that, if they were picked on
demand, we might just take the attendance list from the last few
meetings and draw people from it on an "attendance subjects one
to the risk on volunteering" basis. That has some drawbacks but
For the technical error questions, it is still not clear to me
that IAB is the right appeals body, especially if they were
active in formulating the position under appeal or an alternate
to it. A randomly-chosen jury might still work, but might well
not have the right technical expertise. As one possibility, we
could move toward a formalized blue-ribbon review and mediation
panel, with members of that panel being chosen by IESG, the WG
leadership, and the individual or group launching the appeal.
If it was appropriate to populate that panel with IAB members,
that would be fine, but the review itself would not be an IAB
responsibility. If the panel didn't behave fairly, that
becomes a procedural question, and the appeals board outlined
above takes over.
It seems that the only thing that I can do is keeping records
on who's who were on the board (+when), plus who were the nomcom
who had elected them. Let the Vulcans, Klingons, and
Ferengis make the final judgements in the next millennium.
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- Always select ShutDown from the StartMenu - M$Windows after crash