Sam Hartman wrote:
Our processes have tended to always have review as the first step in
an appeal. I believe that is important.
Margaret's principle (5) which I agree with is consistent with your
definition of appeal although I'm not sure I would use that word.
RFC2026 explicitly empowers the IAB to zap an IESG decision:
If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
decision was taken.
I don't think that is what we want in this case. We probably want what
has happened in practice with most appeals to the IAB, i.e. an anlysis
of what went wrong and caused unhappiness, and advice and procedural
improvements to prevent the same mistake being repeated.
So I think the flavour is indeed more review than appeal. But as
I said yesterday, I agree with principle that the review could be
escalated as far as the ISOC Board - it just seems right.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf