I agree with Joel, I think.
The IAD is a manager. When you disagree with a manager's decision,
you complain to the next manager up (the IAOC). We don't need
to write that down.
The IAOC is a community appointed body - so we do need a
community process; that's either a recall, or posibly a restricted
right of appeal (the othe sub-thread).
Brian
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
On what kinds of grounds should such things be appealable?
For WG decisions, there can be appeals based on technical grounds or
procedural grounds.
The ISOC however may only here pure procedural appeals.
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 is for.)
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 the IAD.
I have even more trouble seeing how someone would end up appealing an
IAOC "decision" since their primary job is oversight. I presume that
they will have decisions to make over and above oversight. But
"appealing" most of those would produce very strange results.
Note that there are many things in our process that can not be
appealed. The IESG decides how many areas to have. It decides what
areas different working groups belong in. It needs to make those
decisions (usually merely by living with the status quo) in order to
function.
Transparency of decisions does require appealability. Most government
transparency does not lead to appeals. There are specific legal grounds
for "adjusting" government decisions. Not "anything can be appealed".
At 08:48 AM 12/2/2004, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
I tend to feel that both the decisions of the IAD and of the IAOC
should be appealable.
My thinking tends toward thinking that anyone should be able to appeal
the decision, or any practice including the accounting practices, of
the IAD. I believe we are defining high standards of transparency, as
I think we should, but transparency without recourse can be problematic.
I think anyone, or perhaps any group of people, should be able to
appeal IAD actions to the IAOC.
the chain of appeal could be either:
a. the normal iaoc-iesg-iab-isoc bot
b. iaoc - a joint iab/iesg appeals committee (that excluded iaoc
members) set up to hear the appeal - isoc bot
c. an abbreviated chain iaoc-isoc bot
As for the IAOC, I believe their actions should be appealable as well
and should use the same chain as an IAD appeal.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf