Subject: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:02:48 -0400

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.

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:52:31 +0200

> actions of the WG chair(s), before any IETF-wide decisions

Yet another reason why the ISOC-driven approach is a bad idea.
(For the basic reason, see my previous message.)

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:22:12 -0700

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.

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:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:47:51 -0700

>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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 22:59:25 -0400

>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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 18:04:09 -0400

--On Friday, 16 May, 2003 16:47 -0700 "[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

Dave Crocker wrote...

>...
> 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