Re: IETF Trust response to the appeal by John C Klensin (July 18, 2009

[Simon Josefsson]

Thomas Narten  writes:

> Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
> response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
> doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
>
> I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
> responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to whether
> the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is
> forthcoming.
>
> Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to the
> appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please just
> move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
>
> IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with
> clarity.

You saved me the time to compose a lengthier response, and instead I can
just +1 yours.

/Simon
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF Trust response to the appeal by John C Klensin (July 18, 2009

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:28 PM -0700 David Kessens 
 wrote:




John,

On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 07:33:37PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:


Instead, it was about the
behavior of the Trustees and their interactions with the IETF
Community.  _That_ discussion is better carried out on the
IETF list, in plain sight of the community, even that portion
who do not feel personally compelled to track the of IPR
policies.


While you seem to imply that you can determine for the rest of
us on the IETF list what is, and what is not a topic of
general interest for the IETF community, I would not like to
let this statement pass unchallenged.


David, I meant to imply no such thing.   Let me explain a little 
better the distinction I am trying to draw.  I think it is 
perfectly reasonable for the Trustees to move a discussion of 
the content of the Trust Licensing Policy, or other such 
matters, to a separate list.  They have done so and I have no 
objection at all.


On the other hand, the appeal addresses issues of whether the 
Trustees/IAOC and their behavior are in compliance with BCP 101, 
especially its provisions about openness, transparency, and 
responsiveness to the community.  That issue affects the entire 
community and as such, IMO, ought to be visible to the same 
community that approved BCP 101, authorized the creation of the 
IASA, and laid down the rules by which it is supposed to 
operate.  For the Trustees to decide (i) to not respond in 
specific terms to the appeal (see Thomas Narten's note) and (ii) 
to take the discussion to a place where few people will see it 
essentially preempts that appear and the right to appeal.   I'm 
not making any determination for anyone about what traffic they 
should read, or even what is of general interest.   I do, 
however, object strenuously to a decision by the Trustees to 
move discussion of that sort of appeal against their behavior to 
a list where the discussion will presumably be drowned by legal 
hairsplitting about the TLP itself.


YMMD, of course, but that was my reasoning and intent.


I fully support the idea of moving this discussion to another
public mailing list.


While I would not be enthused, I would consider moving the 
discussion to a dedicated public mailing list, or a mailing list 
focused on BCP 101, to be plausible.  I believe that moving it 
to a list dedicated to discussions of the TLP to be dismissing 
the entire point of the appeal.


Again, YMMD.
best,
   john




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf