appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process
ekr at rtfm.com
Sun Jun 29 22:35:04 CEST 2003
Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> writes:
> I think the problem is that too much of what gets to IESG has failed to
> consider important design considerations and/or is of poor quality.
> By the time the documents get to IESG, there's little that IESG can do to fix
> the problem - and there is a significant chance that *any* action that IESG
> takes would either warrant an appeal (say, because it approved a document
> containing technical errors), or cause someone to believe that IESG had acted
> When working groups do their jobs properly, there's already consensus on the
> document (not just within the working group, but through the entire community)
> *before* the document goes to IESG, and IESG's job is easy.
> So what we need to do is insist that working groups make IESG's job easy.
The obvious way to do that would be for the IESG to block
documents that don't meet their standards. If they're not
going to do that, how do you propose that "we" insist that
the WGs make the IESG's life easy?
[Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com]
More information about the Problem-statement