RE: next steps on reviewing the appeal process

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

Guess that in the Tony Hain case, we should make it public
knowledge then that he is NOT RESPONDING to REPEATED
requests for clarification. So that the public knows
what is going on.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: maandag 22 september 2003 16:31
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process 
> 
> 
> I think the basic point is that appeals are disruptive to the process
> and do create some sense of uncertainty. The longer it takes to
> resolve an appeal (for whatever reason) the longer the uncertainty.
> In the IPv6 case, the chairs have stated that Tony's appeal led some
> authors to not want to reissue documents lest the work be pointless.
> 
> So, it would generally help the process if appeals were dealt with
> more quickly than they sometimes seem to be. (Not that this makes it
> any easier to actually deal with them quickly...)
> 
> Thomas
>