appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[Keith Moore]

] > 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 that anyone 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. 

Nobody has claimed that eloquence is necessary; it may even be a hinderance.

For better or worse, IETF mostly communicates in English.  Yes, this is a
barrier to those who do not speak English well, but this problem is not
limited to appeals.

The cultural biases are harder to see for those of us who have been in the
organization a long time (and for those of us who adapted to it quickly).  if
someone could help make the assumptions of "IETF culture" more explicit this
would be a valuable contribution.   Again, these biases cause problems in 
every area of IETF, not just appeals.  Though I could understand a view that
it's even more important to be considerate of such differences when evaluating
appeals (and in my experience IESG has tried to do that).

] > 	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.

Simple statements are usually better.  Yes, it often does take a lot of
work to construct them, accustomed as we are to obsfucation.  And there is the
problem of knowing how much background to include, where failure to provide
background can be taken as indication of a lack of expertise.  But I don't
think the purpose of an appeal is to compensate for the appellant's inability
to explain a problem to a working group, and neither do I think we can expect
those evaluating the appeal to read the appellant's mind.  So we must ask
the appellant to do the best he can to state his case, and ask the reviewing
body to do the best it can to understand it, and hope this is sufficient.

] 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.

Indeed, and we should try to judge the appeal on its merits no matter how 
vitriolic it is.  But it never hurts to make the appeal as clear and free from
distractions as possible.

] 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.

I don't know of a better way to do this than to entrust this to the judgement
of experts who have a wide range of expertise (reflecting the range of
technical interests in the Internet) and who been carefully screened before
being appointed to this job. 
	
] > 	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.  

Agreed, but solving the underlying problem and recommending a remedy for the
appeal are not the same thing.  Indeed, this is one of the problems that makes
an AD's job so difficult - he is expected to not merely object to something
that's broken, but also to explain what it takes to fix it.  So I'm very
sympathetic to the notion that this is too much to ask of the appellant.  (of
course, that puts the burden back on IESG again...)

But IMHO the appellant still has a burden to suggest a remedy, whether that be
"don't approve this as Proposed" or "publish as Experimental" or "remand this
to the working group for consideration of X" or whatever.  Otherwise IESG is
left to just guessing; it might struggle to justify a remedy of its own
choosing far more onerous than that which would satisfy the appellant, or it
might assume that  a small correction would satisfy everyone when the
appellant believes that a much larger correction is necessary (perhaps
resulting in another, unnecessary, appeal). 

] 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.

Well, it's certainly *somebody's* (not always the IETF leadership's)
responsibility to bring these issues forward before a harmful decision is
made.  But one reason we have appeals is that we assume that there will
occasionally be failures to carry out these responsibilities - whether by the
IETF leadership, the WG leadership, or the rank and file.

] > 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.  

To the extent this is the case, I think it's mostly because clear
communication is a complex problem for many, and I don't see what we can do
about that.  Of course an appellant is free to enlist the aid of others (maybe
even SIRs) to help him make his case more clearly.

] And the process with its nuance of who get which  appeal when and in 
] which order can run people ragged. 

Actually I agree with this; in particular the procedures seem to assume that
appeals will generally result from improper WG decisions, so it's fairly
unclear how to apply them to AD decisions, IESG decisions, or other actions.

] 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.

>From the appeals I've seen, I suspect such statistics would be meaningless. 
You need to evaluate the appeals on their merits.  Keep in mind that appeals
are disproportionally often (not always) raised by individuals who are unable
to gain any significant support for their views, whether because of their
social ineptitude, inability to express themselves clearly, inability to think
clearly, or their inability to understand the technical issues.  Of course the
appeals must be evaluated on their merits (difficult though they may be to
understand) regardless of who is raising them.  But it's not reasonable to
presume that a significant percentage of appeals are valid.