Ombuds-process

[Keith Moore]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:28:44 +0900
avri <avri at apocalypse.org> wrote:

] > When an individual thnks that the process has not produced a result 
] > that is best for the Internet, there is no formal process to aid the 
] > individual in seeking to change that result.
] 
] i think this formulation is better then mine. but is too restrictive.  
] it calls for the judgment of what is best for the Internet. 

well, that's what the rules say that IETF participants are supposed to do,
so I don't see a problem with invoking it here.  but reasonable people
can disagree about what is "best", and I don't want to expect challenges
every time someone has a difference of opinion - I think we should expect
some gap between "best" and  "so bad it deserves to be challenged"  
I would instead say

"when an individual thinks that the process has produced a result that is
harmful to the Internet..."

though I would assert that our existing appeals process does permit 
individuals to appeal decisions based on this criteria - in that 
anything that is harmful to the Internet is almost certainly not 
suitable under the criteria for standards-track documents.
(e.g. "no known technical omissions")

] as an alternative i suggest:
] 
] When an individual thinks that the process has not produced the right 
] result, or thinks that the process has been abused, there is no formal 
] mechanism to aid that individual in seeking to change that result.

strongly disagree.  nothing in our process requires the "right result",
and it's not clear that there is any such thing.    nor is it clear what
"abusing the process" is as opposed to "failing to adhere to the process".
if someone follows the rules but produces a harmful result, is that
abusing the process?

Keith