John C Klensin wrote:
> It seems to me that, if there is a "right track" here --and that
> is not obvious to me-- that you are on it or at least on a
> parallel one. I suggest that implies several changes to the
> draft, YMMD:
> (1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
> triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
> vexatious appellant. People who are entering their
> first appeals don't trigger it. People whose last
> appeal was successful, even in part (that would need to
> be defined, of course, and that might not be easy) don't
> trigger it. The only folks who need to look for
> supporters are those who have appealed before and whose
> appeals have been rejected as without merit.
That's roughly why I put a section in draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes
called "Single Dispute per Topic." We certainly need to create a
disincentive to repetitious appeals IMHO. Requiring supporters
may be a way to do that. John raises good points in his message.
Michael Thomas wrote:
> Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
Sandy gave you the caricature response, but the short answer
is yes, if the IESG (or IAB) feels that the technical point in
the appeal is valid, but not serious enough to invalidate the
document. That's really what technical appeals are all about:
someone who believes that a valid technical issue has been
set aside when it shouldn't have been, and wants the IESG
(or IAB) to take another look.
Ditto, if a process violation is not felt serious enough
to overturn a decision. As in: yes, we made a mistake,
but the end result is the same anyway.
Ietf mailing list