OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[Brian E Carpenter]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> The process document currently says:
> 
> >- [The ISOC-driven] approach does not require an explicit appeals
> >   process, because an IETF Plenary is used as the basis for approval,
> >   and it is that body from which the IETF draws its authority.
> >   [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that a defined appeals
> >   process is not required for this option?]
> 
> I think that a well-defined appeals process is needed for any
> activity the size and scope of the proposed Improvement WG.
> 
> For example, there may be a need to appeal decisions or
> actions of the WG chair(s), before any IETF-wide decisions
> are made.

Yet another reason why the ISOC-driven approach is a bad idea.
(For the basic reason, see my previous message.)

    Brian