Ted:
With great respect, I must disagree. The appeal says: "It is the
position of the appellants that this removal violates the IETF
process by which working groups are governed." This say to me that
the appellants believe that Cullen Jennings violated IETF process by
replacing the GEOPRIV WG Co-chairs at the time that he did so. I
personally reread many BCPs as part of this appeal review, and I
could not find any process that was violated by this action.
You are correct that any action taken by an AD can be appealed. In
particular, RFC 2026 states:
All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
In this particular appeal, there is a lot of background information
that describes events that happened outside of the two month
window. These can only be taken as context for the actions under appeal.
Russ
At 11:49 AM 9/21/2007, Ted Hardie wrote:
I believe this response (I hope inadvertently) appears to remove a valuable
principle by which the IESG acted on appeals.
I urge the IESG to reconsider the formulation of its response to the appeal
to clarify the issues raised below.
At 2:01 PM -0400 9/20/07, The IESG wrote:
>IESG Response to the Appeal Against the Removal of the Co-chairs of the
>GEOPRIV Working Group
>
>
>Introduction
>
> This is the IESG response to the appeal by Randall Gellens, Allison
> Mankin, and Andy Newton posted at:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/IESG_Appeal_20070622-final.pdf
>
> Cullen Jennings recused from all discussion of this appeal.
>
> The appeal raises three major points for the IESG to address:
>
> 1. The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process;
>
> 2. The actions taken interfered with the consensus process; and
>
> 3. There is a conflict of interest.
>
> The appeal also proposes a remedy. This response includes some
> comments about the proposed remedy.
>
>1. The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process
>
> RFC 2418 says:
>
> Working groups require considerable care and feeding. In addition
>to
> general participation, successful working groups benefit from the
> efforts of participants filling specific functional roles. The Area
>
> Director must agree to the specific people performing the WG Chair,
>
> and Working Group Consultant roles, and they serve at the
>discretion
> of the Area Director.
>
> Since all WG chairs "serve at the discretion of the Area Director,"
> they can be replaced at any time. The previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs
> were told about their removal in private before the public
> announcement. This action was not required, but it is the most
> polite way to handle the situation. Perhaps the public announcement
> could have provided some rationale, but the authority to remove a WG
> chair is clear.
In this response, the IESG appears to have read the appeal to state that the
removal of the chairs was not within the authority of the Area Director.
The appeal statement:
http://www3.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/IESG_Appeal_20070622-final.pdf
does not support this reading. It does not say that Area Directors
do not have the right to remove chairs, it says that the manner
and timing by which this was done interfered with the consensus process
inappropriately. The remainder of the IESG statement below appears
to attempt to address the interference issue. But in choosing to highlight
that all "WG chairs serve at the discretion of the Area Director",
the IESG appears to be saying that the personnel decisions of
an Area Director or the IESG are not subject to appeal.
During the time I served on the IESG, it was a general guideline that
*any decision* of an Area Director or the IESG was subject to appeal
to the IESG. While this is a broad reading of RFC 2026, Section 6.5,
I think it is an important point and a principle worth retaining. The
appeals process in the IETF is not simply a mechanism for establishing
who has what rights; it is a mechanism for conflict resolution. By
making all decisions subject to it, we ensure that conflicts which arise
are dealt with as early as possible and with as little process as possible.
If members of the community believe that a personnel decision
was made in a way the interfered with the proper operation of the
IETF, I believe asking the IESG to attempt to resolve the conflict is
an appropriate thing to do. This appeal response, which re-asserts the
authority of the AD to make the original decision, does not seem
to support this use of the IETF's normal conflict resolution mechanism.
Further, this appeal response appears to say that the only conflict resolution
mechanism open to those who disagree with a personnel decision
is to invoke one of the removal mechanisms for those who made it.
I hope that the IESG will re-structure its response to this appeal
to re-affirm that the conflict resolution mechanisms of the IETF are
available for this purpose. I also encourage the IESG (and, frankly,
the IETF community as a whole) to try to see the appeals process
as a way of resolving conflict, rather than a quasi-legal process
for determining
whether a remedy will be granted. I understand how previous appeals
have pushed everyone in that direction, but it is something we must
continue to resist. I have worked with Allison, Andy, and Randy for
many years, as well as Cullen and Jon. They are all experienced
IETF folks who have toiled for years to make things work; forcing them
into even more adversarial positions when conflicts do need resolution
is a mistake, at least I see it.
My thanks for your attention,
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf