appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

avri avri at
Mon Jun 30 15:18:30 CEST 2003

On måndag, jun 30, 2003, at 14:00 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:

> ] yes, i personally do believe that the appeals process that currently
> ] exists imposes too much burden for many, though not all, appellants.
> okay, I got that.
> ] i also believe that a process that uses the same channel for appeals
> ] as might be the object of the appeal, is flawed.
> mumble.  I find it hard to imagine that if the appeal is about someone 
> on
> IESG, for instance, that that AD would not recuse himself.  but it 
> wouldn't
> bother me if the process were changed to make that explicit.

i think that might be enough.  the close nature of the IESG 
relationship, could
make true impartiality difficult.  i obviously can't speak for the 
internal dynamic
of the current or any other IESG, but the nature of the group, as had 
described externally, seems a place where handling appeals against 
members could be too much of a challenge.

> ] and i believe that a process on paper is not the same as
> ] a mechanism that aids the appellants.
> well, since everything we do is "on paper" (or "on bits") I guess I 
> wonder
> what kind of mechanism you have in mind.

well last time i tried to explain that i wandered too far into 
but i do see it as possibly involving people formally charged with the
task of providing such aid and as possibly, occasionally,  acting on
behalf of appellants.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list