appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[Spencer Dawkins]

Dear Avri,

I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just thinking that
if we think we have a process but the process does not
provide an effective mechanism, we should say so clearly.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "avri" <avri at apocalypse.org>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process


Hi,

On måndag, jun 30, 2003, at 10:27 Asia/Seoul, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> I agree with the sentiment, but we've had at least a couple
> of people who've posted references to appeals that were
> filed, including appeals that resulted in overturned
> decisions.

i think looking at the counter-examples will show that the folks
brave enough and process savvy enough to file these appeals
where not our average participants.

yes, there is a process but it takes a lot of energy and savvy to
use that process.

>
> I'm thinking "there is no mechanism" will just generate more
> postings of this type.
>
> What about "existing mechanisms intended to aid an individual
> in seeking to change such a result, including the appeals process
> described in RFC 2026 section 6.5, aren't used consistently"?

there is a process which i would argue is not a mechanism.
and certainly not a mechanism intended to aid.
i think it is as much a barrier to appeal as anything else.

i certainly do not believe the existing process is a mechanism
that aids people in making appeals.

a.