Sam,
For myself, I agree these things are true. I would like to believe they are obvious, though I'm not certain of that. For example, these things are equally true of the IAB and IESG, but it's not clear to me that everyone understands they can drop a note to either of those groups.
I don't (personally) think the BCP is the place to try to capture this in more detail; perhaps there is some place to do so.
Leslie.
Sam Hartman wrote:
Here is what I want in addition to Margaret's formulation. I want to see if I can get agreement on these (I suspect the answer will be yes) before working on text. IT may turn out that the BCP is the wrong place for such text.
* The IAOC can choose to overturn or otherwise act to reverse a decision if it believes that is the best course of action to follow. Examples include changing procedures if they happen not to work very well or attempting to buy out or terminate a contract if it is clear that the contract is no longer in the IASA's best interest.
* Members of the IAOC may take into account comments from the community and may decide to reconsider a decision based on such comments even if no formal requirement to review the decision or to respond to the comments exists. In other words if the community convinces the IAOC they were wrong, it is reasonable for the IAOC to go do something about it.
* The IAOC should listen to comments. By this I mean that they should be aware of comments they are receiving and weight them according to their value. It's fine to ignore pointless comments; probably even fine to pay less attention to comments from people who have a track record of not providing useful input. It would not be desirable for the IAOC to have completely ignored a constructive, well-reasoned comment simply because there was no formal obligation to respond to the comment. (The IAOC still might not respond, but someone should have at least read the comment and considered what it said)
* It is reasonable for individuals, groups or organized bodies to comment to the community and the IAOC on IAOC decisions. For example if the IAOC selected a meeting sight according to its criteria and the IESG noticed that many working group chairs and document authors were unwilling to come to this sight, it would be reasonable for the IESG to inform the IAOC of this observation. Depending on costs of canceling a meeting, it might (although probably would not) be reasonable for the IESG to ask the IAOC to reconsider.
When I phrase things this way instead of in thinking about them in the context of formal appeals and reviews, they become stunningly obvious at least for me. If these things are not true, I don't think we are living up to an open transparent process receptive to the needs of the IETF community. On the other hand, these things are sufficiently obvious that perhaps nothing needs to be said about them. There is one area where text might be useful.
I'd feel more comfortable if we added text encouraging members of the community with comments about decisions to make those comments to the community at large and/or the IAOC even if their comments did not meet the criteria for formal review/appeal.
Sorry to run such a long chase and end up back mostly at nothing.
--Sam
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
