Brian,
....... 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.
four points of unhappiness with what you say:
- as I defined the term here, if the ISOC Board carries out the
investigation, it is an appeal (different body), not a review (same body)
- the design of the balance of tasks between the ISOC BoT and the IAOC has
been a long process - mostly resulting in the IAOC determining whether or
not the IETF's needs are being met, the ISOC BoT determining whether or not
the plans are fiscally responsible, and both cooperating to find a way
forward where both things are true. Moving review of *all* decisions that
the IAD and IAOC makes to a chain that ends up at the ISOC BoT changes that
- and so does moving review of financial decisions to the IESG/IAB. See my
notes about "implicit hierarchy" at the start of this thread.
- I think the ISOC BoT has a degree of ability to review that this BCP does
not affect - because the ISOC BoT has fiduciary responsibility. But that is
an ability that isn't dependent on anyone bringing complaint to them and
being persistent enough to get past multiple levels of other review bodies.
- And last: Even if there is an appeals chain, I don't think the IESG and
the IAB should be in it. We are supposed to be selected for the wrong sort
of competence.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf