Brian, thanks for providing some scenarios here. Very helpful for
those of us who haven't been on IESG/IAB/ISOC BoT, and are trying to
visualize what the words mean.
I think Harald's followup is helpful here - the existing IESG/IAB are
already part of the "appeals from the community" food chain, and if we
get as far as "IAD makes horrible decision that neither IESG nor IAB
nor the ISOC BoT think is horrible decision", having individuals
continue to pursue an appeal is probably fruitless anyway ...
Please see notes inline.
Spencer
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Brian suggests:
Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal.
Strawperson:
Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the
grounds
that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals process
applicable to the standards process. Matters outside the
standards
process such as staff, budget and contractual matters are not
subject
to such appeal.
works for me
Scott
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble visualizing this - can anyone
give an example of a decision that materially damages correct
execution of 2026?
Have we ever been the subject of a decision, by whomever, that
would qualify for an appeal using this text?
Well, suppose the IAOC decided, on financial grounds, to abolish
Draft Standard and Standard RFCs because they cost too much to
process? Or more plausibly, to stop all RFC editing for 6 months
due to a budget crisis?
Brian
I Would Have Thought that the first possibility would be Out of Scope
for the IAOC (too much direct fiddling with the standards process that
they aren't supposed to be directly fiddling with).
I can imagine the second possibility to be (as you say) more
plausible, but hopefully the IESG and/or IAB would think this was a
bad thing (if there were useful alternatives that hadn't been explored
with IOAC), so having the leadership tell IOAC "please rejoin the real
world" is probably appropriate.
The second scenario is interesting, because presumably if IAOC says
"we can't afford to do this", IETF could not reasonably say "you have
to do it whether you can afford to do this or not". If IETF says "that
really matters, and we're willing to help you identify stuff that
matters less so you CAN afford to do what really matters", that seems
more reasonable to me.
IMHO.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf