RE: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Bert,

At 02:58 PM 9/22/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >          - 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.

There are two parts of your comment:

        1 - We did make a quick decision about whether or not to
                suspend Harald's ruling in this case.  But, I don't
                think that anyone outside the IESG knows that.  So,
                the public perception is that we didn't rule on
                this appeal at all until long after the ruling was
                immaterial.

        2 - I agree with you that it is unlikely that we will ever
                have to overturn a suspension of posting privileges.

This is all less clear, though, when dealing with technical or
document-related decision.  Two instances:

        KRE's appeal:  There was some public discussion about whether
                or not to publish the addressing architecture document
                while KRE's appeal was still pending.  And, if we had
                published it, I still don't know what status it would
                have been given (PS or DS)...  Was this explicitly
                discussed by the IESG and a decision made one way or
                the other?  If so, I wasn't aware of it.

        Tony Hain's appeal:  Work was delayed because people didn't
                know whether or not to act on the decision while an
                appeal was still in process.  Even after Bob and I had
                responded, we were getting significant push back from
                people who didn't want to do work that would be thrown
                out later, if Tony's appeal was upheld.  We were also
                getting posts from people in the WG threatening further
                appeals if we took any action based on the decision
                that was under appeal.

> >          - 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.

RFC 2418 does not say that appeals should be prioritized at a
level to avoid disrupting current work.  It says that no particular
time limits have been included, so that fairness will take priority
over speed.

I do think that we reacted reasonably quickly to Todd's appeal,
especially if you consider the fact that we discussed whether or
not to remove the suspension at the next telechat after his
appeal (which he doesn't know).  But, we aren't always as quick...

Tony Hain registered his initial appeal on April 10th.  Bob and I
officially responded on April 28th.  Tony escalated his appeal to
Thomas and Erik on April 28th, and they responded on July 9th.
Tony escalated his appeal to the IESG on July 16th, and we still
haven't officially responded.  Do you consider this to be
acceptable?  Maybe our opinions differ about how long this should
take...?

In cases where appeals may stay open for months (5+ months in
Tony's) case, I do think that it is important to know how the
decision under appeal should be treated in the meantime.  Once
Thomas and Erik responded, Bob and I decided to tell folks that
the decision would stand unless/until it was overturned.  Is
that correct?  We didn't feel comfortable saying that before
we received any ruling from Thomas and Erik though -- should we
have?  If there were a written policy saying that the decision
stands unless/until the IESG or IAB says otherwise, I think that
we would have been in a better position to uphold it.

> 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.

I know that we shouldn't (and can't) change this on our own.  But,
we have had some recent experience with the appeals process, and
I think that it is reasonable for us to evaluate the process based
on that experience and suggest changes if we think that changes are
warranted.

I have to admit that sometimes I think that Todd Glassey makes a
good point... Just occasionally, in between the personal insults,
threats of legal action and strange non-sequiturs, that is.

Margaret