Subject: RE: "trouble maker"

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:21:18 -0700

That is not the point I raised which was a failure of the IETF WG process,
not the appeals process.

The fact that the same individual can abuse the original WG process and then
participate in the appeals process is relevant however. In fact it is even
possible in theory for a single individual to chair the original WG and
participate in both the original and IAB appeal if the IESG/IAB liason were
involved.

	Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Seng [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
> 
> 
> If you pursue the appeal process as documented in RFC 2026 and you 
> failed despite having all evidences that you should win, I will agree 
> that you have a case to state this as a problem.
> 
> But you choose not to use the process. And your decision to pursue an 
> alternative appeal *does not* indicate a failure of the IETF 
> appeal process.
> 
> -James Seng

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:31:49 +0800

The appeal process is a very important aspect of the IETF WG process. It 
is the safe-guard and check-and-balance against the power of the wg 
chair. Without the appeal process, the WG process dont make sense.

Hence, you cannot conclude the WG process dont work if you dont use the 
appeal process.

This has nothing to do who is chairing or if the same person is on the 
IESG or IAB.

-James Seng