RE: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

My views:
> 
> 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.
> 
So we quickly decided on that one.
I do not see the problem. Once we find that people get suspended
from posting right incorrectly, then we would/should worry.
In general, ADs have been VERY CAREFULL before they suspend anyone,
and since it needs prior IESG agreement, I do not see that we 
would ever not uphold the decision.

>          - I think that we should seriously consider whether we
>                  are handling appeals in a sufficiently timely
>                  manner.
> 
I also believe that in general we have been reacting reasonably 
quickly. And my understanding was that the time-constraints in
RFC2418 were explicitly formulated the way they are to make sure
that current IESG work would not be disrupted by a multitude
of appeals at the same time.

Let us also realize, that the whole IETF approved this doc as
a BCP. So it is not something that the IESG decided on their own.

Just my 2 cents.
Bert
> 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
> >
> > >
> > >
> 
>