appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

Keith Moore moore at
Mon Jun 30 01:37:36 CEST 2003

On 29 Jun 2003 21:35:04 -0700
Eric Rescorla <ekr at> wrote:

] > 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. 

no, that's not easy for IESG, because people put considerable pressure on IESG
to "do the right thing" and block the document, while others pressure them to
approve standards even when they're broken - and then we get people coming to
the problem-statement group claiming that IESG is harming IETF.

the point is that basic design issues need to be sorted out, most of the time,
within a working group.   and that means that the WG needs to build and 
demonstrate a broad consensus for its approach early on, rather than ignoring
the conflicts that they're causing and hoping that IESG will ignore them too.  

] If they're not going to do that, how do you propose that "we" insist that
] the WGs make the IESG's life easy?

IESG's role has to stay the same, but we need to arrange things so that IESG
rarely feels a need to significantly push back on a document after Last Call.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list