[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process


Could we maybe talk about this, sometime?

Separate from Todd Glassey's appeal, which I believe was properly
handled give our current processes, I do think that our appeal
processes could use some improvement.

In particular:

        - It is ambiguous whether a decision stays in force
                during an appeal.  This caused some questions
                in the IPv6 WG for both of our recent appeals,
                not just in Todd's case.

        - I think that we should seriously consider whether we
                are handling appeals in a sufficiently timely
                manner.

Margaret



From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>, <iesg@ietf.org>,
        "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras@haledorr.com>
Subject: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:15:24 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Sender: iesg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: iesg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,
        <mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <iesg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,
        <mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>; <iesg@ietf.org>;
"Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras@haledorr.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process


>
>
> --On 20. september 2003 06:37 -0700 todd glassey
> <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Gentlefolk - What are the next steps in formally reviewing whether the
> > Appeal Process is effective in addressing the appeals for 2418 sanctions
> > anw what not.
>
> Todd,
>
> you've already taken the logical second step - by asking the poised list
> whether people agree with you that such a review is needed.
> So far, you have zero support on that list.

No Harald - I asked the IESG what they proposed to do about the fact that
the Appeal Process does not work.

Your distaste or dislike for me is further evidenced herein and documents
why this type of reform is now so necessary - because obviously this is your
IETF and anyone trying to get anything fair and open into your IETF will
need to deal with you and the ruling party on this... Or at least that is
how it seems, - Tell me Harald - did I misinterpret anything there?

Todd

>
>