-- original message --
Subject: Re: Consensus search: #725 3.4b Appealing decisions
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Date: 01/13/2005 3:08 pm
I think this is acceptable given that we *also* have a recall
procedure. In other words, if the IAOC isn't responsive
to a clear message from a review that "you screwed up", then
we'd better make sure that a recall is initiated.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
On reviewing #725 on appealing decisions, and the crosslinked #720 on
IAD autonomy, I sense a disquiet in the community.
On the one hand, we recognize that a well functioning IAD and IAOC needs
to be allowed to run the show without a thousand people trying to "put
their hands on the tiller".
On the other hand, the community is deeply uneasy about setting up a
situation where we have decisions being made that profoundly affect the
working of the IETF, and if we disagree with the decision, the only
response we can get from anyone in authority is "I made the decision. Go
The second concern was perhaps best expressed by Avri Doria:
A letter of complaint requires no response unless there is something
that formalizes the requirement of response.
And if there is no procedure indicating that the IAOC needs to pay
attention to a letter of complain, that decision, i.e the one to ignore
letters of complain, cannot be appealed.
So, as I see it, without a formalized process of complaint/appeal of
IAD actions we are left with no avenue to deal with problems other then
by the yearly nomcom process and the IETF list.
And the first viewpoint was perhaps best expressed by John Klensin:
If people don't believe that The Right Thing is being done, they
shouldn't be looking in detail at particular decisions. They
should, instead, be suggesting that the IAOC review its own
decisions contributing whatever additional information is
available to that review. And, if the IAOC adopts a pattern of
doing Wrong Things, it should be time to replace them (starting
with a request for resignations), not to try to retune or
override individual decisions.
Get the right people into these positions, and then let them do
If we can't find the right people and put them there, then none
of these procedures --other than firing the duds and trying
again-- are good enough to protect the IETF. Perhaps worse, we
then run the risk of getting us seriously bogged down while we
try to use those incremental correction procedures.
In the debate, I suggested a resolution that involved keeping the
in-draft version of the appeals procedure, with three differences:
- Not limited to procedure, and not limited to the IAOC
- Abandoning the "chain" model of "if you don't like one decision, try
again" that the current appeal structure has
- Not using the word "appeal"
While debate did not stop, this did not seem like a bad idea.
So here's another attempt at section 3.5, replacing the last 3
paragraphs of section 3.4:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the
IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review
of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a
response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG
to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
I think that should be enough - the IAD and IAOC can route all frivolous
requests to /dev/null; the decision of the IESG to not ask the IAOC for
a review is an IESG action that can be handled in the usual way; there
is no formal "I can overturn your decision" involved; if the IAOC shows
a pattern of replying "go away" when a review is requested, that becomes
a matter of public record, and can be used at nomcom time.
Does this seem like a reasonable point on the various scales of concern?
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list