Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
2005-01-25 05:39:25
Hi Brian,
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. And we need to be sure that the "appeals" text allows for
review of procedures, including the kind of "case study" you suggest,
without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
food-fights. It's tricky to get that exactly right.
Are you sure that we have consensus on this? It seems to me that
some people would like the IAB/IESG to be able to force the
re-consideration of an IAOC decision, but not for other IETF
participants to have any way to effectively question the IAOC. At
least, that is how most of the recent suggestions read to me. People
don't even seem to have picked up on my concern that the current text
doesn't say who to contact if you do want a decision reviewed, making
the process difficult and intimidating for anyone who isn't embroiled
in IETF politics.
Maybe it would help (in getting this issue closed) if we could figure
out what we want in general terms and then try to draft the text?
Mixing basic conceptual arguments with text tuning within multiple
(ever changing) camps doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.
So, I'll take a shot at a few things attributes that I think would be
good in a review process:
(1) I agree with you that we do not want a review process (whether
invoked by an individual or by the IAB and IESG) that can overturn a
contract award or hiring decision after that decision is made. The
current proposed text (I think that the latest was from Leslie) makes
the community impotent, without properly restricting the review
requests from the IAB/IESG, IMO.
[N.B. I do hope that the IAOC will run an open RFP process for most
(or all?) contracts, and that the process will include a public
comment stage after the IAOC chooses a potential winner, so that
there will be an opportunity for the community to raise concerns (if
any) before it is too late. Given recent posts, I don't think that
the IASA-TT/IAOC is likely to take us in this direction within the
next year, but I do hope that we get there eventually.]
(2) I think that the review process should be well-enough specified
that a person who is not a (past or present) member of the I* could
use it. This means that it needs to say where you send a review
request, how you unambiguously identify a formal review request and
what a review request should contain. This should be at least at the
level of detail of the RFC 2026 appeals process (or even a bit more
detailed, as folks seem to find that process confusing enough that
they don't often get it right).
(3) I think that review requests should be limited to situations
where the IAOC violates written procedures (their own or the IASA
BCP) and/or makes a decision that is against the best interests of
the IETF. The request for review should be specific about what
procedure was violated and/or how a specific decision runs against
the IETF's interests.
(4) Personally, I think that any member of the community (and yes, I
understand that means the general public) should be able to make a
formal review request and expect to get a response from the IAOC
within a reasonable time period (~90 days). I do not think the
response needs to be a lengthy hearing, or a complex legal document.
But, I think that we should have a review process, open to everyone,
where a response is mandated. The response could be: "We looked
into this decision, and we didn't find anything irregular about the
decision or about how it was reached".
(5) I think that there should be at least one level of escalation
possible if the person requesting a review does not receive a
satisfactory response from the IAOC (I had suggested that this would
go to the IESG). I don't think that the person should have to
persuade the IAB or IESG to act on his/her behalf (which is another
way in which the current process is really only open to political
insiders), I think that the IESG (or whoever we use as the next level
lf escalation) should be required to consider the IAOC's response and
respond to the escalated review within a reasonable timeframe.
(6) I do not think that we want the IAB or IESG (or anyone else) to
be able to overturn a decision of the IAOC, only to advise the IAOC
that they believe that an incorrect decision was made.
Do folks agree with these thoughts? Are there other basic ideas that
should be included?
Margaret
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Brian> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards
Brian> isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude.
Attempting to undo a specific award once things are signed (or
delaying signing) is generally unacceptable. Reviewing a specific
award to come to conclusions like "we failed to follow our
procedures," is definitely problematic but IMHO sometimes necessary.
Such reviews need to be handled with great care: some of the data used
to make the decision may not be available to the reviewing body and
much of the data must not become public. Also, if you conclude that
you did follow the wrong procedures in a specific incident but are
stuck with the contract because it is already signed, that creates all
sorts of bad feelings and potential liability.
Exactly. And we need to be sure that the "appeals" text allows for
review of procedures, including the kind of "case study" you suggest,
without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
food-fights. It's tricky to get that exactly right.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Sam Hartman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Sam Hartman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5,
Margaret Wasserman <=
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, avri
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, avri
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Sam Hartman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Steve Crocker
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Sam Hartman
- Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, avri
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Brian E Carpenter
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5, Scott W Brim
|
|
|