Jeff - thanks for insulting me so on the list - makes it easier to point out
how wrong you are... lets talk about the workflow and constraints of the
appeal process 6.5.1 as modulated by 6.5.4 is what we are talking about.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
To: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>; "Thomas Narten"
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; "Sam Hartman"
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>;
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
I can't figure out how to read the the first paragraph of 6.5.1
(especially the last sentence) and the first paragraph of 6.5.2 and come
up with an explanation where the procedures for 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3
are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. And
in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it to the IESG or
I think the problem comes from assuming that because 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 are
clearly separate paths, then 6.5.3 must also be a separate path, rather
than a follow-on to 6.5.2.
Uh no by the current process 6.5.2 happens after the 6.5.1/6.5.4 process is
. The document is structured rather confusingly,
You have trouble reading? its very straighforward - its just that the
controls and the processes are broken. Someone objects and they must satisfy
the 6.5.1 complaint process AND they have to do it in the 6.5.4 timeframe
and process contraints.
but I've always read it Brian's way, too. And, I don't see any harm in
having something go through the lower levels first, particularly since the
usual case is that someone doesn't like a decision, appeals it, and then
doesn't like the way the appeal was handled.
Right, so 6.5.1 is the Internal-WG dispute resolution process and
facilitates dispute resolution in the WG or by the AD's hand. As a process
it is ineffective and incomplete. There are no defined controls, no
timelines except the time-limitation of 6.5.4, no contingency for when two
competing initiatives battle for supremacy as an WG's only-protocol of one
type; or any definition of the deliverables from any steps within the
process, nor is there any oversight in the process wize-guy to prevent
bozo's from wrecking havoc with other's initiatives. And more than anything
no code of conduct for how WG members MUST act in the WG's... Bluntly 6.5.1
is broken since it provides no protection for those that are maligned or
victimized by other members of WG's or the IETF.
My favorite response to technologists who become inflamed at the idea they
may be less than factual is to point my finger at a bunch of Geneticists in
Korea and their 'cloned animal' as just one of any number of instances of
incidents where individuals status as an Academic researcher or employee was
more important than their ethical stance as a Standards Process participant;
and ask why anyone here is any different?
6.5.2 is the next layer up - and pertains to the IESG's review of matters
that the IETF's WG Chairs and AD's could not resolve internally.
But the real problem is 6.5.4 which gives anyone involved in an appeal
administration to decide for themselves without any framework or guidance,
on the appeal. This last piece breaks the whole picture even if 6.5.1 wants
Ietf mailing list