appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[avri]

i am personally fine with the statement of the problem as:

When an individual thinks that the process has produced a
result that is harmful to the Internet or thinks that IETF processes
have not been adhered to, there is no mechanism to aid that
individual in seeking to change that result.

i think this take your comments into account.   does it?

a.

On söndag, jun 29, 2003, at 09:37 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:

> 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
>