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

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:31:50 +0200

avri,

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

We always need to be careful that the system is not design (or
administered) in a way that prevents legitimate voicing of "contrary"
views, including those that go into an appeal.

On the other hand, I tend to believe that it is a Very Good Thing to
have meaningful barriers, for expensive processes.

A working group should not be formed just because someone likes the
idea.  It needs the barrier of demonstrating community support for using
the output.

Similarly, appeals need a reasonable barrier to avoid frivolities.

Frankly, the more these process discussions go on, the more it looks as
if our biggest problem is with people not having read the documents that
exist.

For example:  the appeals process is documented.  What is it that makes
the barrier to appeals too high?

Your note seeks to move from a generic complaint to something specific
about which action can be taken.  I laud that, and merely suggest taking
it further.

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: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:27:54 -0400

FYI, as an example of an actual appeal, here is a recent appeal the
Internet ADs responded to.

http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ietf/sl-appeal-resp.txt

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:12:35 +0200

I think we do have a problem of lack of systematic archiving 
and announcing of appeals and responses.

   Brian