appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

Keith Moore moore at
Mon Jun 30 10:15:24 CEST 2003

] > ] 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  been described externally, seems a place where
] handling appeals against sitting members could be too much of a challenge.

hmmm.  you might have a point there.

] > ] 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 solutions.
] 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.

ah, now I think I see what you mean.  

IMHO, if we were to have a mechanism to aid people who have trouble grokking
the process it should not be exclusively for appeals.   appeals are very
time-consuming for both appellant and IESG; our goal must be to arrange things 
so that appeals are hardly ever necessary.  so we need to think in terms of
helping people get a fair result long before an appeal would be considered.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list