Subject: Voting - no specification without representation

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:08 -0700

Brian writes:

>It would be a problem if a design team or directorate (which are
>explicitly not open, as Phill says) proposed a solution that did
>not meet rough consensus in the WG or at IETF Last Call and then
>the IESG put that solution on standards track. That would in fact
>be a major violation of RFC 2026.

My problem is with the transparency of the process, not specifically
the issue of whether it did or did not violate RFC 2026. In my view
and according to a litteral reading of RFC 2026 the process was 
violated, but it is the violation of the spirit of openness that 
led to calls for the WG chair to resign (and not just from me).

I agree that the above would be a violation, but when a protocol
has yet to be deployed the use of the same tactics to defend the
status quo is an exactly equivalent abuse. According to RFC 2026
the directorate is appointed by the AD and reports to the ADs
alone. There was a technical violation of 2026 in that the WG chair
had no business referring anything to the directorate, even though
he is AD in another area.

The problem is that the referal was done without any notice to
the working group and was used to supress the consensus that the WG
had then reached to forward OPTIN to the IESG for approval.

So while everyone in the group is waiting for the draft to go to
the IESG it is actually stalled in a private queue of the chair's
invention.

In a commercial environment a delay can have exactly the same 
effect as a veto.

I do not believe that this behavior would survive judicial review.
If it is as you claim consistent with RFC 2026 then RFC 2026 needs
urgent modification to correct it. 

A process that allows the chair to pocket WG decisions that he has
a partisan position against and then recycle the question until he
can pretend that the result was the one he wanted is not open by
any definition I consider credible.

Or forget the process issue for a moment, look at the outcome of
of the process. For me the main point in a standards process is 
to obtain the buy in of all the parties necessary to deploy an
interoperable spec. In this case the IETF has by its refusal to
insist on an open and fair process ended up with a spec that is
not going to be supported by the operators of the largest zones
in its current form.

That is not a successful result in my view. To get XKMS adopted as
an industry standard I had to spend a considerable amount of time
working out how my direct and indirect competitors would benefit
from supporting it - as well of course as my partners.

The result of this 'consensus' process is an undeployable spec 
that is not supported by the principal industry stakeholders.

This outcome is every bit as bad as any that is alledged for OSI
process. Only instead of having a vote and moving on the issue
has simmered for three years already and is far from over.

My experience of voting in OASIS is that it is rarely divisive.
I have not seen the type of vote packing that has occurred in WAP
this is probably because you have to attend the con-calls to 
vote.

		Phill

PS: If you think that the appeals process is not equally broken 
then why not prove me wrong by making the appeal yourself?

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:58:30 +0900

[speaking personally]

On fredag, jun 27, 2003, at 09:28 Asia/Seoul, Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
> then why not prove me wrong by making the appeal yourself?

this brings up the problem that has appeared more in its guise
as a solution on this list.

the IETF has no ombuds-process (leaving aside whether it is
and individual or a group that implements it)

what i mean is that in cases where, for whatever reason:

    - language barrier
    - fear of being ostracized
    - belief in the process itself being valid
    - ability to do all the work involved
    - whatever

an individual does not take advantage of the process,
there is no other recourse.  it can be argued that the
nature of the process make it too difficult a barrier  for
many to overcome,  sure, in the outside world,  we can
all be our own lawyers, but how many of us are really
qualified for such a role.  i think the same logic may
apply in the IETF - how many of us are qualified to
represent ourselves in the appeals process.
and the lack of some entity that one can go to so and
say 'help me, please' seems to me a problem.

so the problem may be:

There is no independent body in the IETF responsible for
helping individuals who have process issues that may need
redress.

(i assume body can mean open body, i.e. person, or several
people in a group - that is a solution detail)

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:04:11 +0900

One of the issues that came up in the discussion on rough consensus
is the issue of ADs being WG chairs - either in their own area or in 
another
area.

I do not believe this dual role aspect of IETF management is yet 
reflected
in the problem draft.

Should it be?

a.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:17:09 -0700

> I do not believe this dual role aspect of IETF management is yet

As long as the AD acting as a WG chair recluses themselves from any and all
IESG decisions having to do with the WG, to avoid conflict of interest, I
don't think there should be a problem. I think its somewhat more
questionable if the WG is in the same area, since it removes one person from
oversight, and having two technically knowledgable, independent opinions on
a WG is often useful.

That said, I cannot see how, given the workload, an AD can possibly do a
good job as a WG chair and still expect to fufill their duties as an AD.
Just on the basis of that alone, it might be sensible to consider some kind
of strong disapproval, if not restriction, and make it an exceptional case.

My 0.02 euro.

            jak

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:47:34 -0700

> helping individuals who have process issues that may need

I think the problem can be stated in even more nonsolutionist terms....

When an individual thnks that the process has not produced a result that is 
best for the Internet, there is no formal process to aid the individual in 
seeking to change that result.

That's a VERY mild statement, and for numerous reasons:

- It is not clear to me that the IETF is in the business of dispensing 
"redress". We're not here to seek an abstract notion of justice, but to 
make quality, relevant standards for the Internet; our adherence to process 
is a tool in our seeking those standards, and the reason we want departures 
from those processes to be challenged is that we think such departures will 
make it less likely that the right decisions are made.

- It is not clear to me that the IETF formal apparatus is the best way of 
aiding people seeking to change IETF decisions who are challenged by the 
hurdles you mention. In the civil-justice court system, lawyers are rarely 
employees of the court.

- It is not clear to me that anything the IETF formal apparatus could have 
done in the case of Phil Hallam-Baker and the DNSEXT working group would 
have made him more happy; after all, he does not seem to be hampered by a 
language barrier, unfamiliarity with the process, fear of being ostracized 
or ability to do work.

Like many other things in the IETF, I think many of us have blithely 
assumed that the informal networks would take care of this - that an 
individual with a valid case would have friends and colleagues enough to 
talk over the issue with, and that one could assume that the consensus of 
that discussion would be reasonably close to the "right answer".

I may have been wrong.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:28:34 +0200

I agree that it's amazing that ADs ever say "yes" to this (except
when the WG is tailing off, for example) and I think the case of
being a chair in the same area is definitely a conflict of interest.
I think recusal should cover the other cases. It is worth documenting.

   Brian

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:29:07 -0700

In one working group, a WG chair did more than recuse himself because he wanted
to push through a draft he had co-authored.  He actually stepped down from the
chair position.  I think that might be going too far.  But these are
"solutions".

The problem statement is more about whether the following are perceived to be
issues or not:

 - pursuing an individual draft within a WG that one co-chairs
 - co-chairing a WG that one oversees as an AD

I'd see the former as less of an issue, and recusal is adequate.  The second is
a bigger issue.

-Vach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:29 AM
> To: James Kempf
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: ADs who are also WG chairs
>
>

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:34:37 -0400

> language barrier, unfamiliarity with the process, fear of being ostracized 

It is also not clear to me whether or not the anecdotal problems
described by Phil Hallam-Baker are systemic in nature, or possibly due
to personality issues; either on his part, or on the part of the AD
and/or wg chair(s) involved.  Of course, that is why we have an
appeals process, but the fact that he chose not to use that avenue
means that we don't necessarily know how the system would have worked.

Phil has been very vocal about a particular experience of his, and
some of his generalizations that he has made, such as asserting that
no one under 40 makes it into the inner circle, have been disputed by
more than one person who has pointed out several counter-examples to
his generalization.

As a rule, I think we need to be very careful about generalizing from
a single person's experience to the general case.  Phil is not alone
in doing this; I've seen it done in others within the IETF context,
and I've spoken out against this practice of taking a single incident
and generalizing it to condemn an individual or a system has being
unfair and unjustified.  So please don't take this as an outright
objection to Phil's comments, but just as a cautionery note.

Perhaps it would be useful to find out if others had similar
experiences to Phil.  I certainly haven't, and I'm well under 30....
Of course, it might just be because I'm not in the inner circle
(whatever that means; maybe it's just becuase I've just never been
invited into any of the smoke-filled back rooms(*), and I don't know what
I'm missing --- although I have been to the ones with Scotch.  :-)

(*) OK, I've been nomcom chair, but I can definitively state that no
one was smoking in any of our meetings.... 

						- Ted

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:29:19 -0400

> experiences to Phil.  I certainly haven't, and I'm well under 30....

My mistake.  That should have read, "well under 40...".  I did add my
"fifth bit" party a while ago...

						- Ted

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:28:44 +0900

On lördag, jun 28, 2003, at 01:47 Asia/Seoul, Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
wrote:
>
> When an individual thnks that the process has not produced a result 
> that is best for the Internet, there is no formal process to aid the 
> individual in seeking to change that result.

i think this formulation is better then mine. but is too restrictive.  
it calls for
the judgment of what is best for the Internet.  as an alternative i 
suggest:

When an individual thinks that the process has not produced the right 
result, or thinks that the process has been abused, there is no formal 
mechanism to aid that individual in seeking to change that result.

  differences:

    - sometimes there is a process problem that can be fixed before the 
wrong
      result is on the books so one should not have to wait until the 
results are in.

   - i used the word mechanism as opposed to process,  i think that is 
the problem;
     one can reasonably argue that there is currently a process, it 
takes very little to
     have a process - that is just words on paper.  i think the problem 
is that there is
     no functional entity that assists in the process.  the word 
'mechanism' is hopefully
     sufficiently abstract and  non-solutionist.

> "redress". We're not here to seek an abstract notion of justice, but 
> to make quality, relevant standards for the Internet; our adherence to 
> process is a tool in our seeking those standards, and the reason we 
> want departures from those processes to be challenged is that we think 
> such departures will make it less likely that the right decisions are 
> made.
>

i think it goes beyond this.  the organization has to be seen as one 
that is open
and is fair to the individuals participating in it in order for it to 
remain a place where people are willing to bring their work or a place 
where work can continue without
rancor.   yes the process is there to help the work get done.  it is 
not an abstract
notion of justice i am looking for,  rather it is a notion of being 
fair and just according
to our rules, processes and principles.

the case under discussion is not the only one of people feeling abused 
by the system that i have heard.  i have been involved in many 
conversations where folks were unhappy with how the system had been 
used to 'force a result' they felt was not in consensus and not fair, 
but the way forward to redress that issue was not clear and did not not 
seem possible.  i have suggested an appeal several times and have often 
gotten answers of inability, fear or disbelief that the system could 
work for them .

> - It is not clear to me that the IETF formal apparatus is the best way 
> of aiding people seeking to change IETF decisions who are challenged 
> by the hurdles you mention. In the civil-justice court system, lawyers 
> are rarely employees of the court.

possibly beside the point, but i think that essentially all public 
defenders
(at least in the US)  are employees of the legal system.  and i don't 
think
we are talking about employees here.  i see those holding offices in 
this
organization as being individuals who volunteer to take on a trust and
to do their best to meet that trust.

> individual with a valid case would have friends and colleagues enough 
> to talk over the issue with, and that one could assume that the 
> consensus of that discussion would be reasonably close to the "right 
> answer".

i think that we cannot count on informal  networks.  i think sometimes 
the need is
purely informational.  IETF processes are not simple and not easy to 
understand.
it is very difficult for many of our participants, especially the 
international ones to
know how to use the process to achieve their goals - something many of 
us on this
list are fairly talented at.  and we cannot assume that all 
participants have a set of
friends, especially friends who understand the process, to help them 
get the right
and fair, as defined by our process, result.

a.

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:30 +0900

> objection to Phil's comments, but just as a cautionery note.

while i did use Phill's comments as entry into the topic, it is not my
only reason for proposing an addition to the problem statement.
as i argued elsewhere, i think there are many people who have trouble
with the process.  i have had heard many tales of woe about the process
and about unfair treatment from WG chairs and ADs and how there was 
nothing
to be done about it.  few of these have ever resulted in appeals.  does 
this
mean they were all unfounded or all settled amicably later behind the
scenes?  that is not what my anecdotal evidence leads me to believe.  i 
think
in most cases those complaining are wrong, but without an easy and 
visibly fair
way  for the complaint to made and brought to a conclusion, it remains 
a wound
in the system and sometimes achieves greater significance then perhaps
warranted.

a.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:30:11 -0700

--On 27. juni 2003 12:29 -0700 Vach Kompella <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The problem statement is more about whether the following are perceived
> to be issues or not:
>
> I'd see the former as less of an issue, and recusal is adequate.  The
> second is a bigger issue.

This may not be a problem, because we've already dealt with the potential...
I think the IESG has avoided the situation of direct oversight of one's 
"own" WG.

I don't think we have any WG where the responsible AD is also chairing the 
WG. We've had some group where the chair is also an AD in the same area, 
but in that case (I can think of only one), the other AD has acted as 
responsible AD for the WG.

(One exception: TSVWG is chartered as a WG, but is chaired by both ADs of 
the transport area - it functions more as an area forum than as a 
standalone working group. I wouldn't want to attempt to change that!)

We've become more strident over the last year in trying to find alternative 
chairs for WGs where the chair becomes an AD; I think (but can't check - 
I'm in flight) the latest set of ADs have managed to shed all their WG 
chair jobs by now.

(and btw - thanks to all those who stepped up when asked, both in these 
cases and in the many other cases where a chair has been needed - the IETF 
is totally dependent on people willing and able to be WG chairs!)

                       Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:39:06 -0700

I like your rephrasing.

--On 28. juni 2003 10:28 +0900 avri <[email-masked]> wrote:

> wrong result is on the books so one should not have to wait until
> the results are in.

and we both agree that the absence of a result can at times be as troubling 
as the appearance of a result that one does not agree with.....

> the problem; one can reasonably argue that there is currently a
> process, it takes very little to have a process - that is just words
> on paper.  i think the problem is that there is no functional entity
> that assists in the process.  the word 'mechanism' is hopefully
> i think it goes beyond this.  the organization has to be seen as one that
> is open and is fair to the individuals participating in it in order for
> it to remain a place where people are willing to bring their work or a
> place where work can continue without rancor.   yes the process is there
> to help the work get done.  it is not an abstract notion of justice i am
> looking for,  rather it is a notion of being fair and just according to
> our rules, processes and principles.

agreed.

> the case under discussion is not the only one of people feeling abused by
> the system that i have heard.  i have been involved in many conversations
> where folks were unhappy with how the system had been used to 'force a
> result' they felt was not in consensus and not fair, but the way forward
> to redress that issue was not clear and did not not seem possible.  i
> have suggested an appeal several times and have often gotten answers of
> inability, fear or disbelief that the system could work for them.

the fear may be our greatest enemy. I liked the appeal that Glen Zorn put 
before the IESG when we failed to follow the rules we had set for codepoint 
allocation in RADIUS; when we looked at the documents he pointed at, it 
took us only seconds to realize that we'd done the wrong thing.
It did take a while to figure out what the right thing was, given RADIUS' 
long and convoluted history - we had to figure out something that was both 
consistent with process and consistent with the right thing for the 
Internet; I think we managed.

> defenders (at least in the US)  are employees of the legal system.  and i
> don't think we are talking about employees here.  i see those holding
> offices in this organization as being individuals who volunteer to take
> on a trust and to do their best to meet that trust.

Other traditions .... in Norway, criminal-court defendants are independent 
lawyers/attorneys (not sure how the titles match up) who take on cases, and 
their fees are paid by public money. The fact that nobody in the justice 
dept can hire or fire them is seen as a major guarantee of their 
independence from the prosecutors and judges (who, again,  report to 
different administrative hierarchies).
But this is a sidetrack - I'm unsure whether either model (civil court with 
its assumption that "one wins and another loses", or criminal court with 
its assumption of "violations against an universal standard of right 
behaviour") fits well with the process of seeking the best high quality, 
relevant standards for the Internet.

> the need is purely informational.  IETF processes are not simple and not
> easy to understand. it is very difficult for many of our participants,
> especially the international ones to know how to use the process to
> achieve their goals - something many of us on this list are fairly
> talented at.  and we cannot assume that all participants have a set of
> friends, especially friends who understand the process, to help them get
> the right and fair, as defined by our process, result.

as you say - the fear is out there. And we need to deal with that somehow.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:57:39 +0200

avri wrote:
...
> wbarranted.

People seem to be saying that the appeal process is too hard & intimidating
to use. Now if we fixed that, the implication is that there would be many
more appeals, which the IESG and IAB simply couldn't handle. So at the
risk of entering solution space, it may be that the need is for an appeals
mechanism which is separate from the IESG and IAB, and which is set up to
be easy to use.

   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:37:17 -0400

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:28:44 +0900
avri <[email-masked]> wrote:

] > When an individual thnks that the process has not produced a result 
] > that is best for the Internet, there is no formal process to aid the 
] > individual in seeking to change that result.
] 
] i think this formulation is better then mine. but is too restrictive.  
] it calls for the judgment of what is best for the Internet. 

well, that's what the rules say that IETF participants are supposed to do,
so I don't see a problem with invoking it here.  but reasonable people
can disagree about what is "best", and I don't want to expect challenges
every time someone has a difference of opinion - I think we should expect
some gap between "best" and  "so bad it deserves to be challenged"  
I would instead say

"when an individual thinks that the process has produced a result that is
harmful to the Internet..."

though I would assert that our existing appeals process does permit 
individuals to appeal decisions based on this criteria - in that 
anything that is harmful to the Internet is almost certainly not 
suitable under the criteria for standards-track documents.
(e.g. "no known technical omissions")

] as an alternative i suggest:
] 
] When an individual thinks that the process has not produced the right 
] result, or thinks that the process has been abused, there is no formal 
] mechanism to aid that individual in seeking to change that result.

strongly disagree.  nothing in our process requires the "right result",
and it's not clear that there is any such thing.    nor is it clear what
"abusing the process" is as opposed to "failing to adhere to the process".
if someone follows the rules but produces a harmful result, is that
abusing the process?

Keith

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:09:49 +0900

i am personally fine with the statement of the problem as:

When an individual thinks that the process has produced a
result that is harmful to the Internet or thinks that IETF processes
have not been adhered to, there is no mechanism to aid that
individual in seeking to change that result.

i think this take your comments into account.   does it?

a.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:47:08 -0400

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:09:49 +0900
avri <[email-masked]> wrote:

] i am personally fine with the statement of the problem as:
] 
] When an individual thinks that the process has produced a
] result that is harmful to the Internet or thinks that IETF processes
] have not been adhered to, there is no mechanism to aid that
] individual in seeking to change that result.
] 
] i think this take your comments into account.   does it?

mostly.  but is it really the case that the appeals process doesn't
serve this purpose?  I would claim that something that is harmful
to the Internet is a technical error, and of course not adhering to
process is a process error, either of which can be appealed under
our current rules.

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:42:12 +0900

Hi,

On måndag, jun 30, 2003, at 10:27 Asia/Seoul, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> I agree with the sentiment, but we've had at least a couple
> of people who've posted references to appeals that were
> filed, including appeals that resulted in overturned
> decisions.

i think looking at the counter-examples will show that the folks
brave enough and process savvy enough to file these appeals
where not our average participants.

yes, there is a process but it takes a lot of energy and savvy to
use that process.

>
> I'm thinking "there is no mechanism" will just generate more
> postings of this type.
>
> What about "existing mechanisms intended to aid an individual
> in seeking to change such a result, including the appeals process
> described in RFC 2026 section 6.5, aren't used consistently"?

there is a process which i would argue is not a mechanism.
and certainly not a mechanism intended to aid.
i think it is as much a barrier to appeal as anything else.

i certainly do not believe the existing process is a mechanism
that aids people in making appeals.

a.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:27:19 -0500

Dear Avri,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "avri" <[email-masked]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:09 PM
Subject: appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

a.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:01:39 +0800

Well, I am in the "under 30" category.

-James Seng

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:00:12 -0400

Let us be clear on the history and purpose, and then decide which of 
several possible problems we actually have.

[This is based largely on outside observation, as I was not active in 
defining these processes at the time.]

When the current processes were being created, it was understood that there 
was plenty of room for the IESG or IAB to do things wrong, and some 
mechanism for correcting these errors was needed.
It was presumed that errors requiring this level of appeal ought to be 
rare.  Normally, WG chair errors should be discussed with the AD, and AD 
errors would be discussed with the IETF chair.  If significant errors 
requiring major action ever become common, then the basic structure is 
wrong and needs changing.
It was also presumed (and activity since has shown this to be true) that 
requests to overturn IESG action would inevitably require significant work 
from a fair number of people.  Hence, the current system simply will not 
work if such requests were common (even ignoring the fundamental 
observation in the previous paragraph.)

Hence, the appeals process was not created to make it easy to cause 
extensive review of IESG actions.  The IETF last call is the intended 
mechanism to make it easy for folks to provide useful input.  And that 
(sensibly) is before the decision.

So, my question becomes what problem do we want to solve?
Do we really want to make appeals of IESG decisions easy and common?  I 
hope not.
Is there a problem where people feel that their input has not been 
considered, and it is too hard to force the issue?  Probably.
Is the underlying problem then that people think that they are being 
ignored when in fact their input was considered?
Or is there an underlying problem of the IESG ignoring important input?   I 
hope not, but it is certainly not impossible.
Or is there a problem that the appeals process, by nature difficult, is 
simply perceived as too hard, even if it is appropriate for the job?
Or is there a problem of insufficient explanations of the decisions that do 
get made?

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:00:41 +0800

While I dont disagree we should document the problem of IESG dual role 
as WG chairs, we should be aware that it is a secondary problem resulted 
from the power granted to the WG chairs & IESG, ie. it is a problem of 
balance of power.

-James Seng

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:07:15 -0500

Dear Avri,

I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just thinking that
if we think we have a process but the process does not
provide an effective mechanism, we should say so clearly.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "avri" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

Hi,

a.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:41 -0400

] While I dont disagree we should document the problem of IESG dual role 
] as WG chairs, we should be aware that it is a secondary problem resulted 
] from the power granted to the WG chairs & IESG, ie. it is a problem of 
] balance of power.

Seems like you could describe almost any problem as a balance of power
problem.  For instance, the global pollution problem is caused by too much
power being concentrated in the hands of those who pollute and too little
power being concentrated in the hands of those who wish to protect the
environment.

But I don't see how this illuminates an understanding of the problems of ADs
also being WG chairs.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:07:56 -0400

] i certainly do not believe the existing process is a mechanism
] that aids people in making appeals.

so do you think the existing appeals mechanism imposes too much of a
burden for the appellant?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:16:23 -0400

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:00:12 -0400
"Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> wrote:

] Hence, the appeals process was not created to make it easy to cause 
] extensive review of IESG actions.  The IETF last call is the intended 
] mechanism to make it easy for folks to provide useful input.  And that 
] (sensibly) is before the decision.
] 
] So, my question becomes what problem do we want to solve?
] Do we really want to make appeals of IESG decisions easy and common?  I 
] hope not.
] Is there a problem where people feel that their input has not been 
] considered, and it is too hard to force the issue?  Probably.
] Is the underlying problem then that people think that they are being 
] ignored when in fact their input was considered?
] Or is there an underlying problem of the IESG ignoring important input?   I 
] hope not, but it is certainly not impossible.
] Or is there a problem that the appeals process, by nature difficult, is 
] simply perceived as too hard, even if it is appropriate for the job?
] Or is there a problem of insufficient explanations of the decisions that do 
] get made?

I think the problem is that too much of what gets to IESG has failed to
consider important design considerations and/or is of poor quality.
By the time the documents get to IESG, there's little that IESG can do to fix
the problem - and there is a significant chance that *any* action that IESG
takes would either warrant an appeal (say, because it approved a document
containing technical errors), or cause someone to believe that IESG had acted
improperly.

When working groups do their jobs properly, there's already consensus on the
document (not just within the working group, but through the entire community)
*before* the document goes to IESG, and IESG's job is easy.

So what we need to do is insist that working groups make IESG's job easy.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:18:04 -0400

] I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just thinking that
] if we think we have a process but the process does not
] provide an effective mechanism, we should say so clearly.

it's as clear as mud to me.

are you saying that the appeal process is too much trouble,
or that the appeal process, when invoked, fails to produce a desirable result?

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jun 2003 21:35:04 -0700

> So what we need to do is insist that working groups make IESG's job easy.

The obvious way to do that would be for the IESG to block
documents that don't meet their standards. If they're not
going to do that, how do you propose that "we" insist that
the WGs make the IESG's life easy?

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   [email-masked]]
                http://www.rtfm.com/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:37:36 -0400

On 29 Jun 2003 21:35:04 -0700
Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

] > When working groups do their jobs properly, there's already consensus on
] > the document (not just within the working group, but through the entire
] > community) *before* the document goes to IESG, and IESG's job is easy.
] > 
] > So what we need to do is insist that working groups make IESG's job easy.
] 
] The obvious way to do that would be for the IESG to block
] documents that don't meet their standards. 

no, that's not easy for IESG, because people put considerable pressure on IESG
to "do the right thing" and block the document, while others pressure them to
approve standards even when they're broken - and then we get people coming to
the problem-statement group claiming that IESG is harming IETF.

the point is that basic design issues need to be sorted out, most of the time,
within a working group.   and that means that the WG needs to build and 
demonstrate a broad consensus for its approach early on, rather than ignoring
the conflicts that they're causing and hoping that IESG will ignore them too.  

] If they're not going to do that, how do you propose that "we" insist that
] the WGs make the IESG's life easy?

IESG's role has to stay the same, but we need to arrange things so that IESG
rarely feels a need to significantly push back on a document after Last Call.

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:00 +0900

> burden for the appellant?

yes, i personally do believe that the appeals process that currently 
exists
imposes too much burden for many, though not all, appellants.

i also believe that a process that uses the same channel for appeals
as might be the object of the appeal, is flawed.  i think this may be an
aspect of too much control in too few hands.

and i believe that a process on paper is not the same as
a mechanism that aids the appellants.

a.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:59:33 +0800

Let me put it another way:

The current IETF process gives too much power to the wg chairs & IESG so 
a person dual role at wg chair & IESG is likely to be problematic. If 
the process is redesigned, it could be done in such a way that having 
dual role is not a problem.

Note that I dont object documenting the dual role problem specifically.

And we could argue what's the appropriate solution (altho not in this 
forum) but the answer is not neccessary the simplistic rule of "no 
person shall be wg chair and IESG at the same time".

-James Seng

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:00:17 -0400

] yes, i personally do believe that the appeals process that currently 
] exists imposes too much burden for many, though not all, appellants.

okay, I got that.

] i also believe that a process that uses the same channel for appeals
] as might be the object of the appeal, is flawed. 

mumble.  I find it hard to imagine that if the appeal is about someone on
IESG, for instance, that that AD would not recuse himself.  but it wouldn't
bother me if the process were changed to make that explicit.

] and i believe that a process on paper is not the same as
] a mechanism that aids the appellants.

well, since everything we do is "on paper" (or "on bits") I guess I wonder
what kind of mechanism you have in mind.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:07:24 -0400

] Let me put it another way:
] 
] The current IETF process gives too much power to the wg chairs & IESG so 
] a person dual role at wg chair & IESG is likely to be problematic. 

if you're saying that this creates a conflict of interest, I'd probably
agree with you.  the same person cannot adequately represent the WG
to IESG and fulfill the duty of IESG to review the WG's documents.
though it's already well-established that an AD who is a WG chair must
recuse himself from discussions of that WG's work, this still means
that there's one fewer AD reviewing the work - and given that most
works are only reviewed by a couple of ADs anyway, this is a problem.

however, I don't think you've demonstrated that "the current IETF process
gives too much power to the wg chairs & IESG", and I'd object to that
statement.   *somebody* has to decide whether there is consensus, and whether
the document is of adequate quality, both within the WG and within the IETF as
a whole, and I don't see how decision can reasonably be made by other than a
small group of people.

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:18:30 +0900

> bother me if the process were changed to make that explicit.

i think that might be enough.  the close nature of the IESG 
relationship, could
make true impartiality difficult.  i obviously can't speak for the 
internal dynamic
of the current or any other IESG, but the nature of the group, as had 
been
described externally, seems a place where handling appeals against 
sitting
members could be too much of a challenge.

> what kind of mechanism you have in mind.

well last time i tried to explain that i wandered too far into 
solutions.
but i do see it as possibly involving people formally charged with the
task of providing such aid and as possibly, occasionally,  acting on
behalf of appellants.

a.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jun 2003 22:26:55 -0700

> rarely feels a need to significantly push back on a document after Last Call.
I don't see any way to arrange this other than the IESG 
rejecting documents and holding firm. I'd be glad to hear
your suggestions, however.

The problem here is that there is an incentive conflict:
The people in the WGs who write documents by and large simply
want them passed. There are some people, including most (all)
of the IESG who believe that the WGs are not putting out 
work of sufficient quality. In order to change this situation,
the WG's incentives have to change. The only people who can
make their incentives change are those who have the power to
block their documents.

-Ekr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:15:24 -0400

] > ] yes, i personally do believe that the appeals process that currently
] > ] exists imposes too much burden for many, though not all, appellants.
] >
] > okay, I got that.
] >
] > ] i also believe that a process that uses the same channel for appeals
] > ] as might be the object of the appeal, is flawed.
] >
] > mumble.  I find it hard to imagine that if the appeal is about someone 
] > on IESG, for instance, that that AD would not recuse himself.  but it
] > wouldn't bother me if the process were changed to make that explicit.
] 
] i think that might be enough.  the close nature of the IESG 
] relationship, could make true impartiality difficult.  i obviously can't
] speak for the internal dynamic of the current or any other IESG, but the
] nature of the group, as had  been described externally, seems a place where
] handling appeals against sitting members could be too much of a challenge.

hmmm.  you might have a point there.

] > ] and i believe that a process on paper is not the same as
] > ] a mechanism that aids the appellants.
] >
] > well, since everything we do is "on paper" (or "on bits") I guess I 
] > wonder what kind of mechanism you have in mind.
]
] well last time i tried to explain that i wandered too far into solutions.
] but i do see it as possibly involving people formally charged with the task
] of providing such aid and as possibly, occasionally,  acting on behalf of
] appellants.

ah, now I think I see what you mean.  

\begin{solution-space}
IMHO, if we were to have a mechanism to aid people who have trouble grokking
the process it should not be exclusively for appeals.   appeals are very
time-consuming for both appellant and IESG; our goal must be to arrange things 
so that appeals are hardly ever necessary.  so we need to think in terms of
helping people get a fair result long before an appeal would be considered.
\end{solution-space}

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:23:27 -0500

Dear Keith,

Your proposal does not seem solutionist to me - just very pragmatic!

I agree that our problem is NOT "we don't have enough formal appeals"...

Spencer

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:21:09 -0400

] The problem here is that there is an incentive conflict:
] The people in the WGs who write documents by and large simply
] want them passed. There are some people, including most (all)
] of the IESG who believe that the WGs are not putting out 
] work of sufficient quality. In order to change this situation,
] the WG's incentives have to change.

true.  but one way to change the incentives is to change how WGs operate,
e.g. require them to do widespread review of goals and design documents
before writing the protocol.  I can also imagine making WGs responsible
for reviewing and responding to all Last Call comments.  of course IESG would
have to make sure that the WG had followed the new procedure, that the 
responses to those comments were reasonable, etc.

and this is too new in my mind and too much into solution space to 
supply details right now, but I think it ends up having WGs operate
very differently than they do now, and the chair's role also being
very different.

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:37:49 -0400

People  seem to  have trouble  remembering just  what the  problem  with the
appeals process is,  although this was discussed extensively  on this list a
month or so ago. 

An  AD  may decide  to  derail  a document  by  explicitly  rejecting it  on
non-objective grounds.  Or, more likely, the AD may derail it by delaying it
indefinitely;   John  Klensin  gave   a  very   lucid  description   of  the
"hypothetical" process  which an  AD could use  to ensure that  the document
never gets published, even though it never really gets rejected.)  

Unless there is an explicit process violation, there is no effective appeals
mechanism to remedy this situation.  

Given that  the IETF is ostensibly  set up as a  meritocracy, its legitimacy
depends on  the application of  objective criteria for decision  making, but
there is no effective way to audit the IESG to ensure that they don't try to
impose their own personal visions and/or political agendas.  

It is unfortunate that most of the messages on this list seem to be from the
"old boys" themselves, who of course  take umbrage any time someone tries to
point out a real problem.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:06:52 -0400

] People  seem to  have trouble  remembering just  what the  problem  with the
] appeals process is,  although this was discussed extensively  on this list a
] month or so ago. 
] 
] An  AD  may decide  to  derail  a document  by  explicitly  rejecting it  on
] non-objective grounds.  Or, more likely, the AD may derail it by delaying it
] indefinitely;   John  Klensin  gave   a  very   lucid  description   of  the
] "hypothetical" process  which an  AD could use  to ensure that  the document
] never gets published, even though it never really gets rejected.)  

Let's take these two cases separately.  First, to some degree engineering 
judgement is and must be subjective, so it may be perfectly valid for an AD
to reject a document on such grounds.  However since the reasons for 
objection are made explicit, they can be the subject of an appeal - the
appellant can assert that the AD made a technical error in his subjective
judgement, and the IAB can agree or disagree as it sees fit.

As for the second case, it can be difficult to distinguish between a case
where an AD is trying to get a document fixed before putting it to the entire
IESG for review, and the case where an AD is trying to delay the document
indefinitely; d different observers might come to different conclusions.  
For a while it has at least been recommended that WG chairs CC the IESG
secretary when submitting a document for approval by IESG; this at least
makes it visible that the document is waiting for review by an AD.  I don't
see any reason to not make this a formal requirement.  The one thing we
cannot do is require an AD to approve a document merely because the WG
submitted it.  It may be that we need another means by which a WG can get
their documents reviewed by the entire IESG, so that the lone AD cannot 
hold things up forever.

But whenever a WG submits a docuent that the WG's AD doesn't like, in most
cases this is because the WG has failed to get broad consensus on a document.
And IMHO that's a much bigger problem than the potential deadlock at AD review.

] Unless there is an explicit process violation, there is no effective appeals
] mechanism to remedy this situation.  

Well, the appellant could in some cases claim that the AD made a technical
error. 

But I object to the use of the word "derail" as it presumes a right to
publication which doesn't (and shouldn't) exist. 

] Given that  the IETF is ostensibly  set up as a  meritocracy, its legitimacy
] depends on  the application of  objective criteria for decision  making, but
] there is no effective way to audit the IESG to ensure that they don't try to
] impose their own personal visions and/or political agendas.  

To some degree engineering judgement is and must be subjective.

] It is unfortunate that most of the messages on this list seem to be from the
] "old boys" themselves, who of course  take umbrage any time someone tries to
] point out a real problem. 

so when you can't support your arguments, inovke ad hominem attacks (in
advance) against those who point out their flaws.  that way, you don't 
even have to know what the arguments are to discredit them.

Keith

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:11:50 -0400

>judgement, and the IAB can agree or disagree as it sees fit.

Yes, the IAB could agree or disagree with the IESG's technical
decision...

BUT, there would be no point in appealing the IESG's rejection of a
document, because the IAB cannot overrule the IESG and publish the
document, even if the IAB believes that the IESG made a technical or
process error in rejecting the document.

Margaret

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:15:23 -0400

] At 11:06 AM 6/30/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
] >Let's take these two cases separately.  First, to some degree engineering
] >judgement is and must be subjective, so it may be perfectly valid for an AD
] >to reject a document on such grounds.  However since the reasons for
] >objection are made explicit, they can be the subject of an appeal - the
] >appellant can assert that the AD made a technical error in his subjective
] >judgement, and the IAB can agree or disagree as it sees fit.
] 
] Yes, the IAB could agree or disagree with the IESG's technical
] decision...
] 
] BUT, there would be no point in appealing the IESG's rejection of a
] document, because the IAB cannot overrule the IESG and publish the
] document, even if the IAB believes that the IESG made a technical or
] process error in rejecting the document.

if that's the case, we should probably fix it.  at the least the IAB should be
able to remand the document to IESG for consideration according to different
criteria.

Keith

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:24:43 -0400

>able to remand the document to IESG for consideration according to different

This is what RFC 2026 says:

    "If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
    this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
    ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
    then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
    with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
    action is needed.  The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the
    complaint to the IETF.

    Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG
    review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review
    the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own
    choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.

    If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
    annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
    decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
    or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
    however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
    only the IESG is empowered to make."

So, the IAB may recommend an action to the IESG, but it can't force
the publication of an RFC.

Margaret

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:03:20 -0400

>     If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision
>     be annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the
>     IESG decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to
>     the IESG, or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The
>     IAB may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a
>     decision which only the IESG is empowered to make."
> 

I think this is mostly as it should be, and at the moment I'm at a loss
to see how to improve it.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:17:27 -0400 (EDT)

> document,

I do not see anything in the appeal process that prevents the IAB
from tellingthe IESG that the rejection was wrong and that the
document should be published

Scott

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:20:31 -0400 (EDT)

> the publication of an RFC.

it would take a rather stupid IESG to not take the IAB's advice
in an appeals process - the ISG has not been *that* stupid yet
and I doubt it would ever be - to reject such a judgement would, 
in my opinion be grounds for a complete turnover of teh then sitting 
IESG and I would personally start the recall process

Scott

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:06:14 -0700

Hi Scott,
	The only appeal heard when I was on the IAB dealt with
a document being advanced, not being rejected, but we did
talk about the process fairly extensively.  My understanding
of the consensus of the then-IAB was that the IAB could
annul a decision of the IESG, but that doing so returned
something to the state before the decision.  This came out
this section of 2026:

    only the IESG is empowered to make.

	In the case of a decision not to publish a standards track document,
the state previous to the decision (the document is not yet published)
and the state after (the document is not published) are functionally
the same.  So the IAB rendering a decision does not trigger the
publication, the IESG issuing the document onto the standards track
in compliance with the IAB recommendation does.  While the result may be,
again, functionally the same, the distinction helps preserve the
separation of function that provides the basis of the check and balance.
	Since you wrote 2026, you are, of course, uniquely suited
to tell us whether that is what you meant, but I thought I would share
my understanding of the interpretation it has been given by at least one IAB.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:36 -0400

--On Monday, 30 June, 2003 18:20 -0400 Scott Bradner 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> So, the IAB may recommend an action to the IESG, but it can't
>> force the publication of an RFC.
>
> and I doubt it would ever be - to reject such a judgement
> would,  in my opinion be grounds for a complete turnover of
> teh then sitting  IESG and I would personally start the recall
> process

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:20:29 -0400

--On Monday, 30 June, 2003 10:42 +0900 avri 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> i think looking at the counter-examples will show that the
> folks brave enough and process savvy enough to file these
> appeals where not our average participants.
>
> yes, there is a process but it takes a lot of energy and savvy
> to use that process.
>...

Mumble.  Ok, I have filed an appeal, and it was successful in 
getting an action changed.  I've also been in the middle of the 
IAB review process for several of them.  So, with your 
indulgence (I don't think this is a problem, and what I'm about 
to say isn't a solution), let me explain how to mount a 
successful appeal so it isn't a secret any more.

	Step 1: Produce a coherent and focused statement about
	what is being appealed, what the issues are, and why the
	action that was taken was wrong.  Leave out any random
	musings or accusations about, e.g., the eating habits or
	parentage of IESG members and assumptions about their
	evil motivations.  This is often not an easy writing
	job, but it is necessary.  For better or worse, if the
	IESG and IAB can't figure out what you are complaining
	about, or if the appeal seems to be an excuse for a
	personal attack, the appeal won't go anywhere unless the
	problem is really, obviously, an abuse of judgment or
	authority.
	
	Step 2: Be absolutely clear about what remedy is desired
	and expected, and be sure that it is within the
	authority of the AD or IESG to grant and execute.
	Leaving the IAB or IESG sitting around and saying to
	each other "well, she is probably right, but what on
	earth does she want us to do about it?" is not likely to
	produce a useful and positive outcome.

That is really all there is to it.  Most, if not all, of the 
appeals that have dragged out for a long time and then produced 
results that either upheld the IESG in some lukewarm way or were 
satisfactory to no one showed symptoms consequent of omitting 
one of the steps above.    If the IAB (or even the IESG) get an 
appeal that says "the problem is obvious, you can read all about 
it on the following 400 web pages and many megabytes of logs, AD 
Jones is a fool and has it in for me, and I'd like you to 
un-invent the wheel so I can patent it", that appeal probably 
isn't going anywhere even if the underlying issue is a problem 
that really does need fixing.

This isn't either a complex procedure or rocket science... it is 
just recognizing that presenting a clear case to the IESG and 
IAB is much more likely to get careful attention and reasonable 
results.

     john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:40:53 -0400

] 	Step 1: Produce a coherent and focused statement about
] 	what is being appealed, what the issues are, and why the
] 	action that was taken was wrong.  Leave out any random
] 	musings or accusations about, e.g., the eating habits or
] 	parentage of IESG members and assumptions about their
] 	evil motivations.  This is often not an easy writing
] 	job, but it is necessary.  For better or worse, if the
] 	IESG and IAB can't figure out what you are complaining
] 	about, or if the appeal seems to be an excuse for a
] 	personal attack, the appeal won't go anywhere unless the
] 	problem is really, obviously, an abuse of judgment or
] 	authority.
] 	
] 	Step 2: Be absolutely clear about what remedy is desired
] 	and expected, and be sure that it is within the
] 	authority of the AD or IESG to grant and execute.
] 	Leaving the IAB or IESG sitting around and saying to
] 	each other "well, she is probably right, but what on
] 	earth does she want us to do about it?" is not likely to
] 	produce a useful and positive outcome.

3. state your argument and your proposed remedy as simply and succinctly as
possible while still being complete.  The less irrelevant material IESG or IAB
has to wade through, the easier it will be for them to consider your case.

maybe this should be an I-D?

Keith

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:42:13 +0900

On tisdag, jul 1, 2003, at 08:20 Asia/Seoul, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Monday, 30 June, 2003 10:42 +0900 avri <[email-masked]> 
> wrote:
>
> Mumble.  Ok, I have filed an appeal, and it was successful in getting 
> an action changed.

And you are most definitely not a regular participant and are most
adept at the processes of the organization.  You also have excellent
command of the english language.  And due to long term association
with the I* know exactly what is relevant and what is not.  You also
share a cultural similarity to the majority of those who read and 
adjudicate
the appeals.

the fact that you think this is trivial easy and thatanyone can do what 
you can
do is indeed a significant part of the problem in my opinion.  Those of 
us
who can command the language to do what we want it to do (well I
don't always succeed) and those of us who can play the process game,
often think that everyone can do what we can do.  It is not the case.

> I've also been in the middle of the IAB review process for several of 
> them.  So, with your indulgence (I don't think this is a problem, and 
> what I'm about to say isn't a solution), let me explain how to mount a 

Coherency is a value laden judgment and is often difficult for people.
What is a lack of coherence to one is lack of understanding to another.
I have often found that it takes me a lot of work to find the coherency
in an argument.  And the fault is often mine.  If I look at the world 
one
way, and the writer looks at it another, the language may be such that
the beauty and coherence of the argument is lost on me.

And sometimes a complaint is covered by some vitriol that is emotionally
justifiable as it does happen that sometimes WG chairs and AD are not
paragons of impartiality and virtue -  even though I know we try to 
claim
that all problems are systemic and have nothing to do with the people
themselves or human  nature.  And yes, it would be better if they could
put all hard feelings aside and write like lawyers but sometimes they 
can't.
So, underneath there may be a real issue that requires a real solution 
and
to ignore it would do harm to the complainant and sometimes even to the
Internet itself.

These questions are indeed part of my reason for believing that the
IETF needs some mechanism to make sure that all valid
complaints do get a just and complete airing.

> 	produce a useful and positive outcome.

I also question whether the appellant must also have the solution.  
Often
one see something and 'knows' it is wrong, but does not know the right
solution.  Or may have a valid complaint but an invalid solution.  Is 
the
complaint therefore worthless?  And should the problem be ignored
in that case?

>
> That is really all there is to it.  Most, if not all, of the appeals 
> that have dragged out for a long time and then produced results that 
> either upheld the IESG in some lukewarm way or were satisfactory to no 
> one showed symptoms consequent of omitting one of the steps above.    
> If the IAB (or even the IESG) get an appeal that says "the problem is 
> obvious, you can read all about it on the following 400 web pages and 
> many megabytes of logs, AD Jones is a fool and has it in for me, and 
> I'd like you to un-invent the wheel so I can patent it", that appeal 
> probably isn't going anywhere even if the underlying issue is a 
> problem that really does need fixing.

Have there really been that many appeals asking that the wheel be 
un-invented?

I think it is is incumbent on those resolving appeals to find the 
underlying
problem. Or rather it is the responsibility of the IETF leadership, in 
some way
and form, to make sure that the underlying issue is always brought 
forward.

>
> This isn't either a complex procedure or rocket science... it is just 
> recognizing that presenting a clear case to the IESG and IAB is much 
> more likely to get careful attention and reasonable results.

I disagree.  Construction of a valid appeal is a complex problem for 
many.
And the process with its nuance of who get which  appeal when and in
in which order can run people ragged.

I would really be interested in an analysis of the number of appeals 
that have
been brought forth in last years, the number of successful ones and the 
reasons
formally given for the unsuccessful ones.  Is a formal record kept of 
all appeals
and the deliberation on those appeals?  Are those records open and 
readily
available to the IETF participants?

a.