OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[Bound, Jim]

The IETF plenary is less than a jesters court and I cannot think of one
thing that has changed because of it?  Be glad to hear if others can
tell us?  

Why do any beleive the current appeals process does not work?  I say it
does.  

This is not broken in the IETF is my view.  I find plenary's totally
boring though usually, and it should also not be a forum to trash the
IESG that is not good I believe today.  The IESG is trying to do a job
if there is an issue take it to them if one still has an issue use the
appeals.

For example running code I believe has been forgotten as good input to
whether a standards tracked document is in fact useful as input.
Whether that is true or not is not the debate here but going to the
plenary and complaining about it is stupid and a waste of ones time. We
also don't want PS to become held up for running code in most cases.Also
if I were IESG member and someone said they had running code I would
grill them to prove it and demonsrate it, or point to bake-off where it
is running.  Just because one hacks up a kernel for one part of a spec
does not mean the spec or code is correct for the standard. But, it does
demonstrate a serious effort and belief in the work.

But Avri's talk on the IETF problem space work was an EXCELLENT use of
IESG Plenary time at the San Francisco meeting.  That is what it can do
well which is the communications to masses stated below.  That I agree
with.  Also Haralds update on the finanical condition. Those talks were
useful information.  But in Yokohamma the implementors were completely
misrepresented for IPv6 and the community heard only one side of that
story it was completely biased.  Nothing is perfect so I for one let it
go though I was prodded by well over 20 members to go bitch about it to
the IESG I just stated it is not worth our time nor will it affect
anything regarding IPv6 implementation momentum.   

Also getting any real work done in a room with > 300 people is absurd.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hardie at qualcomm.com [mailto:hardie at qualcomm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 7:48 PM
> To: Dave Crocker; Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no; Dave Crocker
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path
> 
> 
> At 4:22 PM -0700 5/16/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >Margaret,
> >
> >
> >MW> I think that a well-defined appeals process is needed for any 
> >MW> activity the size and scope of the proposed Improvement WG.
> >
> >There is no higher appeal than the IETF Plenary.
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Could you expand on how that actually works?
> 
> I see the IETF plenary as a very important tool for ensuring 
> that anyone in the community has a voice that carries beyond 
> a particular working group or area.  I am not sure that it 
> can be an effective appeals body or what process it would use 
> if we decided it should be one. Fundamentally, the time 
> allotted to Plenary meetings by our current schedule is very 
> short, and the issues we are dealing with very complex.  Even 
> assuming that we limited folks' time and trips to the 
> microphone, we seem unlikely to resolve any substantive 
> issues inside a meeting.  The one appeal I heard in my short 
> term on the IAB took a great deal of both focused time 
> discussing the issue and even more wording a response; I 
> don't think we have that in Plenary meetings.
> 
> To put it another way, the open mic at a plenary ensures that 
> issues can be raised, but it seems a poor context for 
> actually resolving the issues or appeals.
> 
> It also fundamentally misses our usual point that 
> participating in the IETF can take place outside the 
> face-to-face meetings, as it requires those not attending a 
> particular meeting to make some other arrangements for 
> participation.  With the jabber conferences, it is easier, 
> though time shifting and other barriers remain.
> 
> 			regards,
> 				Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> >Worrying about invoking "normal" appeals processes entirely 
> misses the 
> >nature of this IETF change effort.
> >
> >This effort is not a typical technical specification effort, 
> so let's 
> >not pretend that it must conform to our typical working 
> group process.
> >
> >
> >
> >d/
> >--
> >  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> >  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> >  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
> 
>