appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process
moore at cs.utk.edu
Mon Jun 30 12:06:52 CEST 2003
] People seem to have trouble remembering just what the problem with the
] appeals process is, although this was discussed extensively on this list a
] month or so ago.
] An AD may decide to derail a document by explicitly rejecting it on
] non-objective grounds. Or, more likely, the AD may derail it by delaying it
] indefinitely; John Klensin gave a very lucid description of the
] "hypothetical" process which an AD could use to ensure that the document
] never gets published, even though it never really gets rejected.)
Let's take these two cases separately. First, to some degree engineering
judgement is and must be subjective, so it may be perfectly valid for an AD
to reject a document on such grounds. However since the reasons for
objection are made explicit, they can be the subject of an appeal - the
appellant can assert that the AD made a technical error in his subjective
judgement, and the IAB can agree or disagree as it sees fit.
As for the second case, it can be difficult to distinguish between a case
where an AD is trying to get a document fixed before putting it to the entire
IESG for review, and the case where an AD is trying to delay the document
indefinitely; d different observers might come to different conclusions.
For a while it has at least been recommended that WG chairs CC the IESG
secretary when submitting a document for approval by IESG; this at least
makes it visible that the document is waiting for review by an AD. I don't
see any reason to not make this a formal requirement. The one thing we
cannot do is require an AD to approve a document merely because the WG
submitted it. It may be that we need another means by which a WG can get
their documents reviewed by the entire IESG, so that the lone AD cannot
hold things up forever.
But whenever a WG submits a docuent that the WG's AD doesn't like, in most
cases this is because the WG has failed to get broad consensus on a document.
And IMHO that's a much bigger problem than the potential deadlock at AD review.
] Unless there is an explicit process violation, there is no effective appeals
] mechanism to remedy this situation.
Well, the appellant could in some cases claim that the AD made a technical
But I object to the use of the word "derail" as it presumes a right to
publication which doesn't (and shouldn't) exist.
] Given that the IETF is ostensibly set up as a meritocracy, its legitimacy
] depends on the application of objective criteria for decision making, but
] there is no effective way to audit the IESG to ensure that they don't try to
] impose their own personal visions and/or political agendas.
To some degree engineering judgement is and must be subjective.
] It is unfortunate that most of the messages on this list seem to be from the
] "old boys" themselves, who of course take umbrage any time someone tries to
] point out a real problem.
so when you can't support your arguments, inovke ad hominem attacks (in
advance) against those who point out their flaws. that way, you don't
even have to know what the arguments are to discredit them.
More information about the Problem-statement