OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[Bound, Jim]

OK.  I am not in favor of ISOC being brought into the loop till the very
end.  But they should be part of the process as logic check for sure if
required.

Why do you up the chain?  It is going down the chain?  

I don't think nomcom process for wg chairs is good idea and overkill. 

The process should be as follows for all grievances by a member.

WG Chair
IESG
IAB
ISOC

THis is standard open door policy in any company I know of too.


thanks
/jim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw at windriver.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 11:27 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Dave Crocker; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> At 11:27 PM 5/16/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> >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 only case where we are currently discussing the appeals 
> process is the ISOC-driven approach.  In this case, the ISOC 
> President serves as the "responsible AD".  So, the appeals 
> process would go to the ISOC President, then to the IESG, 
> then up the chain?
> 
> This might work if we choose this approach, but it would need 
> to be documented.
> 
> >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.
> 
> The question of whether the process will be IESG-driven or 
> ISOC-driven is separate from chair selection.  We could use a 
> nomcom-like method to select the WG chairs, regardless of 
> which group provides WG oversight.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
>