On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
+1
And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.
If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are not
adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a mutual
appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as
possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual
appreciation society.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
<warren(_at_)kumari(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed
and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?"
Other than a
*very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
page is basically a handy kook reference.
I think this is a bit overstated.
Yes. It was a flippant response and there should probably have been a smiley
somewhere in it...
There are 14 unique names of appellants (2 of which are groups of
appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants account for 19 appeals, all
denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of the club with those 3 who make
up 60% of the appealing,
Yup, that is the club I was meaning.
but if you simply remove those, you get:
13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in between
appeals)
1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided
6 appeals accepted
6 appeals denied.
So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers.
Yeah, you are right.
I was simply looking at the list of repeats.
Of the rest, over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and
long-time participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were
denied and half were accepted.
So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are
accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues to
the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the
cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is, there's
a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees the rest of
us in the IETF have missed.
I'd be part of that club.
Yup, fair 'nuff -- as would I.
I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that
appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of
them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.
Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers
that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away
from those who are using it for its designed purpose.
Agreed. The dispute / appeals process is important, and needed -- it has
served, and I'm sure will continue to serve, a useful purpose.
But, before filing an appeal I think one should take a step back, wait a day or
three to calm down and ask oneself:
A: is this really worthy of an appeal?
B: how / why did we end up here?
C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11?
D: have I tried to resolve this without resorting to appeals? really?
E: do I actually understand how this IETF thingie works?
F: was there any sort of process violation or am I simply annoyed that no-one
likes / listens to me?
G: have I filed more appeals than actual contributions?
H: does my appeal text Contain Randomly capitalized Text or excessive
exclamation marks? Have I made up words?
I: am I grandstanding?
J: am I simply on the rough side of consensus?
K: is this really worthy of an appeal?
W
In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
collection of categories. The web page lists only those that
were escalated to full IESG review.
Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, or
ISOC BoT as "appeals". The rest of the "discussions" are simply part of
"dispute" or "disagreement" resolution.
But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution takes
place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal appeal.
p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and
not all appeals.
Good idea.
pr
--
Pete Resnick
<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. -
+1 (858)651-4478
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." -- Terry Pratchett