Re: Fwd: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> 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.

Anyone who thinks that a decision is somehow suspended when an appeal
is filed is nuts. That is surely a DOS attack. There is nothing in any
document that would support such a view (I assume/hope).

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

Are you thinking specifically about the hain and/or glassey appeals?
Note also that dealing with appeals in a more timely fashion can also
be a DOS attack...

IMO, our appeals process could use some tuning. But I would favor
making it harder to file bogus appeals. I.e., requiring that an appeal
have some small number of co-supporters or something. Tood's is a good
example of something that doesn't deserve the time we've spent on
it. Tony's is also not worth the time I've spend on it.

Thomas