On 17:15 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for
either or both of
1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute
mediator.
Certainly a way to defuse some issues. This can be to settle a
dispute. This can be to address COI. Technical COI cannot be avoided
and they may help progressing. But the IETF is for all. So the
Ombudsman should be in a position to evaluate and block the
propositions building exclusives, as a real Denial of IETF Services
to some needs.
It could also be a report to IESG/IAB, or granting a "minority
position" status. The aim is to first to stop the noise over the
opponent's supposed noise. If the Ombudman accept that the opponent's
contribution is genuine, he will not be obliged to address all the
trolls fired at him. The noise over his contributions will disapear.
People interested in debating the opponents positions will be able to
do it in public, this can only help a more serious consensus.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf