"trouble maker"

[James Seng]

i see.

i guess making noise about the "failure" of the IETF process is more 
productive then actually participating in the process.

its your call.

-James Seng

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Pure sophistry, the WG process failed because an individual was allowed to
> abuse it for three years. The three years delay was the failure of the WG.
> 
> I want to see evidence the IETF is committed to reform and openness before
> making any appeal.
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Seng [mailto:jseng at pobox.org.sg]
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:32 PM
>>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>>Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
>>Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
>>
>>
>>The appeal process is a very important aspect of the IETF WG 
>>process. It 
>>is the safe-guard and check-and-balance against the power of the wg 
>>chair. Without the appeal process, the WG process dont make sense.
>>
>>Hence, you cannot conclude the WG process dont work if you 
>>dont use the 
>>appeal process.
>>
>>This has nothing to do who is chairing or if the same person 
>>is on the 
>>IESG or IAB.
>>
>>-James Seng
>>
>>Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>
>>>That is not the point I raised which was a failure of the 
>>
>>IETF WG process,
>>
>>>not the appeals process.
>>>
>>>The fact that the same individual can abuse the original WG 
>>
>>process and then
>>
>>>participate in the appeals process is relevant however. In 
>>
>>fact it is even
>>
>>>possible in theory for a single individual to chair the 
>>
>>original WG and
>>
>>>participate in both the original and IAB appeal if the 
>>
>>IESG/IAB liason were
>>
>>>involved.
>>>
>>>	Phill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: James Seng [mailto:jseng at pobox.org.sg]
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:10 PM
>>>>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>>>>Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
>>>>Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
>