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

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:11:25 -0400

Keith> But whenever a  WG submits a document that the  WG's AD doesn't like,
Keith> in  most  cases this  is  because  the WG  has  failed  to get  broad
Keith> consensus on a document.

Well, I  understand that that's your  story and you're sticking  to it.  But
can you provide a  reason for anyone to believe this?  Or  do you mean it to
be a tautology, i.e., "broad consensus" means "the AD likes it"? 

Keith> to some degree engineering judgement is and must be subjective, so it
Keith> may  be perfectly  valid  for an  AD  to reject  a  document on  such
Keith> grounds. 

In  areas  where different  engineers  might  reasonably  come to  different
judgments, it is not appropriate for the IESG to substitute its own judgment
for the WG consensus.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:33:27 -0400

] Keith> But whenever a  WG submits a document that the  WG's AD doesn't like,
] Keith> in  most  cases this  is  because  the WG  has  failed  to get  broad
] Keith> consensus on a document.
] 
] Well, I  understand that that's your  story and you're sticking  to it.  But
] can you provide a  reason for anyone to believe this?  

The AD is trying to make sure that the document is of high technical quality 
and does not cause problems.  The surest way for the document to cause
problems is for the WG to fail to consider interests outside of the immediate
focus of the WG.  This happens all the time.

] Or  do you mean it to
] be a tautology, i.e., "broad consensus" means "the AD likes it"? 

ADs don't like things that cause problems for them, and some of the most
difficult problems are those which require them to play Solomon and sort out
conflicts between distant interests.  So an AD is much more likely to like a
document if there is a broad consensus supporting it.  And believe it or not,
ADs are sensitive to public opinion, so if an AD has a personal bias against a
document a broad supporting consensus is likely to cause the AD to set aside
that bias.

] Keith> to some degree engineering judgement is and must be subjective, so it
] Keith> may  be perfectly  valid  for an  AD  to reject  a  document on  such
] Keith> grounds. 
] 
] In  areas  where different  engineers  might  reasonably  come to  different
] judgments, it is not appropriate for the IESG to substitute its own judgment
] for the WG consensus.

That's where you're dead wrong.  WGs are too narrowly focused to be entrusted 
to impose their own judgement on the whole community.   But a WG that takes 
the trouble to do its homework and accomodate outside interests is far more
likely to be able persuade an AD (and the IESG as a whole) that it's proposal
is in the interest of the whole community.

Keith

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:52:09 -0500

Dear Keith,

I thought today's quote from John Klensin on the appeals process
was helpful in a broader sense:

> I also deliberately said "remedy" and not "solution".  Suppose
> we have an appeal whose substance is "the solution the WG came
> up with is bad, because..., and doesn't really represent
> consensus, so the IESG shouldn't make it a standard".  "XYZ
> should be the standard instead" might be a "solution", but the
> IESG would be on thin ice if it substituted its protocol
> judgment (and that of the appeal) for that of the WG.  By
> contrast, "the IESG should return this matter to the WG, insist
> that it reconsider the technical matter and gets its act
> together procedurally, and consider whether the current chair is
> the right person to steer that process".   That is a "remedy"
> for the particular problem -- it doesn't require knowing the
> solution.

I think there is a distinction between "this is the wrong answer"
and "this is the wrong answer, and the right answer is ...".

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process