OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, 16 May, 2003 16:47 -0700 "hardie at qualcomm.com" 
<hardie at qualcomm.com> wrote:

Dave Crocker wrote...

> There is no higher appeal than the IETF Plenary.

>...
> 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.

For whatever it is worth, I think this is the key issue. 
Regardless of the other advantages and disadvantages of unusual 
models for this work, I believe it is vital that we not violate 
the principle that we make decisions (technical or otherwise) on 
mailing lists, not in face to face meetings, even plenary 
sessions. I hope the reasons for that are obvious to everyone, 
especially in these troubled times of travel restrictions, etc. 
But it seems to me that decisions about changes in process are 
even less, rather than more, appropriately made in a way that 
excludes people who can't manage to show up at a given meeting 
(or even establish remote communication with it).

I do have some misgivings with the notion of assigning this to 
the "General Area". That is partially because of general 
concerns about that "area" and its relationship to the IETF 
Chair position/role that I've expressed elsewhere.  It is also 
partially because of some of the same issues that have, I think, 
led others to recommend relatives active ISOC roles in managing 
the WG.  But perhaps we can find an intermediate position.  For 
example, I would be more comfortable if the IESG as a whole took 
responsibility for the WG, chair selection, etc., rather than 
assigning it to a single AD or a single area.  The WG and its 
chair will be operating under an unusual level of general IETF 
scrutiny.  If the chair is chosen through a relatively 
open/public process, if there is IESG consensus about the 
choice, and if it is generally understood that any issues are 
going to require appeals to the full IESG and not a single AD 
(or the Chair), then I think we are probably adequately 
protected against abuse or conflict of interest without 
introducing some "cure" that is worse than the problem it is 
solving.

Similarly, it would obviously behoove the IESG to be 
exceptionally open and responsive about its handling of any 
recommendations or drafts emerging from such a WG, as even the 
slightest hint of burying ideas that one or more IESG didn't 
like --rather than debating those ideas openly in the 
community-- would presumably lead to a level of community 
frustration that would, in turn, justify, not appeals, but 
recalls.  And I don't think we need any specific rules to that 
effect -- the IESG is more than capable of figuring these things 
out on their own and I think we can trust them to do so.

regards,
       john