"trouble maker"

[James Seng]

If you pursue the appeal process as documented in RFC 2026 and you 
failed despite having all evidences that you should win, I will agree 
that you have a case to state this as a problem.

But you choose not to use the process. And your decision to pursue an 
alternative appeal *does not* indicate a failure of the IETF appeal process.

-James Seng

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> No, I am am persuing an alternative appeal route called the market.
> 
> Given that the individual who was responsible for the conduct being appealed
> is on the IESG and is unlikely to recuse himself of the appeals process I
> would be a complete fool to bring an appeal to that forum, thereby endorsing
> a closed process as the final arbiter.
> 
> If the IESG is interested in a spec that can actually be deployed it will
> start the appeals process of its own accord or return the current drafts to
> the WG because the operators of the largest zones have identified serious
> technical flaws that prevent deployment.
> 
> 	Phill
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Seng [mailto:jseng at pobox.org.sg]
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:22 PM
>>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>>Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
>>Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
>>
>>
>>In other words, you have not formally appeal. You only assume 
>>you will 
>>fail even if you appeal. And assuming you have fail, the IETF 
>>process is 
>>broken.
>>
>>The logical chain dont link. Please bring your soap opera 
>>somewhere else.
>>
>>-James Seng
>>
>>Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>
>>>>But this does not means there is a problem with IETF nor 
>>>>could I agree 
>>>>with your conclusion. How could there be a problem if you 
>>>>have not put it to a test?
>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that the WG process can break so baddly and the IESG 
>>>sits by and twiddles its thumbs doing nothing is enough of a test
>>>as far as I am concerned.
>>>
>>>I raised my concerns repeatedly with the AD and got nothing but
>>>the wet sock 'process' tosh. So even though the process was being
>>>abused left and right there was no recourse.
>>>
>>>
>>>		Phill
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>