On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
...it's just wrong.
I think he's got a good idea. It maybe could use some tweaking.
A lot of tweaking is needed IMO. I have no problem with the idea of requiring
some measure of support for an appeal, but as usual the devil is in the
details, and I think the current draft is badly off the mark in this regard.
The problem with using NOMCOM-eligibility is that there are plenty of serious
IETF participants who don't attend enough meetings to qualify. I'm already
uncomfortable that lack of attendance precludes NOMCOM participation, but there
is at least some justification in the NOMCOM case in that certain social skills
are needed by the various nominees, and good luck on assessing those in the
context of the IETF without having attended some meetings, and preferably
recent ones.
When it comes to appeals of IESG and IAB actions I don't think serious
participants who happens not to attend meetings should be placed at any sort of
disadvantage in regards to partipication.
I would be tempted to suggest a weaker version of the NOMCOM criteria, e.g.,
having attended at least 3 out of the last 9 meetings, or even having attended
at least one meeting, were it not for the fact that there are some valuable
contributors who have never attended a meeting, period. Heck, this category
even includes the chairs for some _successful_ WGs. So I don't believe this
works either.
And weakening the criteria to simply be some form of participation, e.g. a
posting to some IETF list means you qualify, makes them effectively useless.
Perhaps the way to go is to simply says that you have to have some number of
identifiable supporters, never mind the qualifications of those supporters. But
would this actually reduce the number of bogus appeals? Others have suggested
that this will cause the people filing these appeals to band together. I
honestly have no idea if that would happen or not.
In any case, I think there is far more danger associated with excluding the
wanted than there is to including the unwanted.
The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to its
constituency and serve only to waste its (donated) time-dollars.
I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about this. The question is how to
get this effect without causing other, possibly worse, damage.
This includes but is not limited to: appeals from total nuts.
One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this
draft, is to limit appeals to only those made by mixed nuts.
IMO it is not "perfectly acceptable" as presently described.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf