OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[Bound, Jim]

the member should go to the AD, if the AD is not enough the IETF Chair
and if that don't work go to IAB and if that don't work feed WG chair to
pig or give up :--) 

the key is that there is no conflict of interest in the chain and all
parties are in positions based on absolute skill set and a nomcom
process that has no conflict of interest to elect IAB and IESG updates
who in turn appoints WG chairs.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw at windriver.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:59 PM
> To: Dave Crocker
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path
> 
> 
> At 04:22 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >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.
> 
> So, if a WG member has a problem with an action taken by the
> WG chair, how will that be appealed to the plenary?
> 
> Or will the aggrieved party have to wait until the conclusion 
> of the process, when consensus on the results is sought 
> during the plenary?  At that point, how would an appeal on a 
> months- old action be constructively raised?
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
>