Agree with Joel here.
I would hate to see someone "appeal" an IAD decision because they
happened to disagree with it. That would make the job impossible.
There probably are some things that should be subject to appeal. I
don't know what they would be. If we can not list them, I don't
think we dare create an appeal process.
The IADs job is administration. We need to hire an IAD and let him
do his job with sufficient oversight / review (that's what the IAOC
Note that if the IAD decisions are sufficiently transparent, then if
the community really dislikes the decisions, then the community
leadership will look into better directing or if necessary replacing
I think this is where Klensin usually says, "or the community will
look into better directing or if necessary replacing the community
leadership". I happen to like this idea, because I'd rather see one or
two blow-ups (and we don't have many) compared to endless
second-guessing by random IETF participants at the detailed level. If
the IAD really blows it and the community leadership doesn't act, keep
those cards and letters coming in to nomcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)
Bradner is fond of pointing out that we have no admission controls on
Internet Drafts, but since oversight will almost certainly be based on
judgement and taste, there had better be admission controls on appeals
of oversight. If it's as easy to appeal an IAD decision as to post to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org (for example), that may not be a good thing.
Ietf mailing list