appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process
spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Sun Jun 29 22:07:15 CEST 2003
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.
----- 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
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
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.
More information about the Problem-statement