appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Hi Harald & Margaret,

> > Not to pick on John but...
> >
> > At 06:25 PM 7/12/2003 +0300, john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:
> >> I agree - I think we should file it as an issue & suggest text.
> >
> > Where would you "file" this issue (about not having a common
> > web repository for appeals/responses?)...
> >
> > It really doesn't belong in the problem statement, because
> > I don't think anyone would argue that this issue is a serious,
> > root cause problem facing the IETF...  The same goes for a
> > lot of other "issues" that have been raised on this list.
> >
> > In this case, it would probably take longer to document this
> > problem than to fix it...

I agree, I think that the problem documents are about ready for last call,
I don't think we want to drag this out too long - we should be 
working on solutions.

> it belongs under "routine stuff that the IESG needs to handle, but where 
> the  IETF as such doesn't need to do anything".

I agree.  However, is there any place to to discuss / request such things?

John

> We've got running archives now of IESG appeals and responses and IAB 
> appeals and responses; if we need AD appeals and responses, 
> we can make that happen too. Recovering history is a problem. But I 
> don't think that's something that  has a huge impact on the future of the IETF.
> 
>                Harald
> 
>