OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path
Brian E Carpenter
brian at hursley.ibm.com
Fri May 16 15:52:31 CEST 2003
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> The process document currently says:
>
> >- [The ISOC-driven] approach does not require an explicit appeals
> > process, because an IETF Plenary is used as the basis for approval,
> > and it is that body from which the IETF draws its authority.
> > [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that a defined appeals
> > process is not required for this option?]
>
> I think that a well-defined appeals process is needed for any
> activity the size and scope of the proposed Improvement WG.
>
> For example, there may be a need to appeal decisions or
> actions of the WG chair(s), before any IETF-wide decisions
> are made.
Yet another reason why the ISOC-driven approach is a bad idea.
(For the basic reason, see my previous message.)
Brian
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list