appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[avri]

On tisdag, jul 1, 2003, at 08:20 Asia/Seoul, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Monday, 30 June, 2003 10:42 +0900 avri <avri at apocalypse.org> 
> wrote:
>
>>> I agree with the sentiment, but we've had at least a couple
>>> of people who've posted references to appeals that were
>>> filed, including appeals that resulted in overturned
>>> decisions.
>>
>> i think looking at the counter-examples will show that the
>> folks brave enough and process savvy enough to file these
>> appeals where not our average participants.
>>
>> yes, there is a process but it takes a lot of energy and savvy
>> to use that process.
>> ...
>> there is a process which i would argue is not a mechanism.
>> and certainly not a mechanism intended to aid.
>> i think it is as much a barrier to appeal as anything else.
>>
>> i certainly do not believe the existing process is a mechanism
>> that aids people in making appeals.
>
> Mumble.  Ok, I have filed an appeal, and it was successful in getting 
> an action changed.

And you are most definitely not a regular participant and are most
adept at the processes of the organization.  You also have excellent
command of the english language.  And due to long term association
with the I* know exactly what is relevant and what is not.  You also
share a cultural similarity to the majority of those who read and 
adjudicate
the appeals.

the fact that you think this is trivial easy and thatanyone can do what 
you can
do is indeed a significant part of the problem in my opinion.  Those of 
us
who can command the language to do what we want it to do (well I
don't always succeed) and those of us who can play the process game,
often think that everyone can do what we can do.  It is not the case.

> I've also been in the middle of the IAB review process for several of 
> them.  So, with your indulgence (I don't think this is a problem, and 
> what I'm about to say isn't a solution), let me explain how to mount a 
> successful appeal so it isn't a secret any more.
>
> 	Step 1: Produce a coherent and focused statement about
> 	what is being appealed, what the issues are, and why the
> 	action that was taken was wrong.  Leave out any random
> 	musings or accusations about, e.g., the eating habits or
> 	parentage of IESG members and assumptions about their
> 	evil motivations.  This is often not an easy writing
> 	job, but it is necessary.  For better or worse, if the
> 	IESG and IAB can't figure out what you are complaining
> 	about, or if the appeal seems to be an excuse for a
> 	personal attack, the appeal won't go anywhere unless the
> 	problem is really, obviously, an abuse of judgment or
> 	authority.

Coherency is a value laden judgment and is often difficult for people.
What is a lack of coherence to one is lack of understanding to another.
I have often found that it takes me a lot of work to find the coherency
in an argument.  And the fault is often mine.  If I look at the world 
one
way, and the writer looks at it another, the language may be such that
the beauty and coherence of the argument is lost on me.

And sometimes a complaint is covered by some vitriol that is emotionally
justifiable as it does happen that sometimes WG chairs and AD are not
paragons of impartiality and virtue -  even though I know we try to 
claim
that all problems are systemic and have nothing to do with the people
themselves or human  nature.  And yes, it would be better if they could
put all hard feelings aside and write like lawyers but sometimes they 
can't.
So, underneath there may be a real issue that requires a real solution 
and
to ignore it would do harm to the complainant and sometimes even to the
Internet itself.

These questions are indeed part of my reason for believing that the
IETF needs some mechanism to make sure that all valid
complaints do get a just and complete airing.

> 	
> 	Step 2: Be absolutely clear about what remedy is desired
> 	and expected, and be sure that it is within the
> 	authority of the AD or IESG to grant and execute.
> 	Leaving the IAB or IESG sitting around and saying to
> 	each other "well, she is probably right, but what on
> 	earth does she want us to do about it?" is not likely to
> 	produce a useful and positive outcome.

I also question whether the appellant must also have the solution.  
Often
one see something and 'knows' it is wrong, but does not know the right
solution.  Or may have a valid complaint but an invalid solution.  Is 
the
complaint therefore worthless?  And should the problem be ignored
in that case?


>
> That is really all there is to it.  Most, if not all, of the appeals 
> that have dragged out for a long time and then produced results that 
> either upheld the IESG in some lukewarm way or were satisfactory to no 
> one showed symptoms consequent of omitting one of the steps above.    
> If the IAB (or even the IESG) get an appeal that says "the problem is 
> obvious, you can read all about it on the following 400 web pages and 
> many megabytes of logs, AD Jones is a fool and has it in for me, and 
> I'd like you to un-invent the wheel so I can patent it", that appeal 
> probably isn't going anywhere even if the underlying issue is a 
> problem that really does need fixing.

Have there really been that many appeals asking that the wheel be 
un-invented?

I think it is is incumbent on those resolving appeals to find the 
underlying
problem. Or rather it is the responsibility of the IETF leadership, in 
some way
and form, to make sure that the underlying issue is always brought 
forward.

>
> This isn't either a complex procedure or rocket science... it is just 
> recognizing that presenting a clear case to the IESG and IAB is much 
> more likely to get careful attention and reasonable results.

I disagree.  Construction of a valid appeal is a complex problem for 
many.
And the process with its nuance of who get which  appeal when and in
in which order can run people ragged.

I would really be interested in an analysis of the number of appeals 
that have
been brought forth in last years, the number of successful ones and the 
reasons
formally given for the unsuccessful ones.  Is a formal record kept of 
all appeals
and the deliberation on those appeals?  Are those records open and 
readily
available to the IETF participants?

a.