Subject: Re: appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:45:21 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with what John says here (other than the nuance that the IAB
could "recommend" to teh IESG that an ID be published as stds track)

my outburst should be seen as a reaction to the dancing on the
sharp end of a pin discussion that this has desolved into

lets move on to real problems that changes in rulesets could deal with

Scott

-------
To be strictly accurate, as I understand the relevant 
procedures, the IAB _can_ direct that a document be published, 
it just can't give such a document a standards-track category. 
Specifically...

> "The IAB may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by
> issuing a decision which only the IESG is empowered to make."

But the IAB may direct the publication of an RFC in the normal 
course of events (see 2223bis), so its asking for publication 
doesn't involve a decision that only the IESG is empowered to 
make.  Classifying something as a standard is another matter -- 
only the IESG can do that.

On the other hand, that particular way of dealing with a "rather 
stupid IESG" might be equally stupid on the IAB's part: if we 
were to get into that state, we would be in deep enough trouble 
that Scott's proposed "complete turnover" remedy would be among 
the most mild of reasonable actions.

Folks, I don't think there is any point trying to make 
procedures for meltdown situations in which, e.g., the IAB, on 
appeal, strongly disagrees with an IESG decision and the IESG 
decides to ignore whatever the IAB has to say.   If that happens 
and we have elaborate procedures, an IESG in that mode is fairly 
likely to ignore them too.  Then we need a potentially-bloody 
revolution, not more procedures.  Ergo, more procedures don't 
help, at least as long as we believe that, in sufficiently 
extreme cases, the recall mechanism really would work.

      john