Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[William McCall]

On 07/02/2013 07:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother
writing one...

i have never considered writng one.  sour grapes make bad wine.

randy
I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty hilarious 
stuff in there. I feel this contributor's frustration though (even 
though the IESG is right).


I'd tend to agree with you Randy... save it for something worth 
advocating for.

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Pete Resnick]

On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:

Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many 
succeed?
   


My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html:

Accepted: 6
Denied: 25
Withdrawn: 1

One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were denied. One 
appellant appealed 4 times, all denied. One appellant appealed 3 times, 
all denied.


At least two of the accepted appeals resulted in a different remedy than 
requested by the appellant (i.e., adding an IESG Note to a document 
instead of making other changes or rejecting the document).


At least two of the denied appeals were on strictly procedural grounds; 
one came over two months after the action, one was appealing an IAB 
decision that was out of jurisdiction for the IESG to decide.


Interpret the above as you see fit.

pr

--
Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Toerless Eckert]

Jari, *:

Disclaimer: see signature (i do not know the details of this specific case).

To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has for 
providing recognition
to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as recognition for 
that contribution
is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it will 
negatively impact
the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see. Unless a 
contributor has
a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts, its most 
likely not worth
their time to fight / improve documents without better means of recognition 
than how its
defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing recognition for 
their contribution
to their employer/sponsor.

As much as i hate overboarding processes, an explicit review tool tracking 
feedback
and approval/disapproval of documents may be able to help here. Especially 
given how
there is already tooling to show some form of IETF score based on explicit
authorship. You know who's tool i am talking about ;-)

Not claiming i am persuaded that the problem is significant enough to invest 
into an
explicit review tool, just saying its more than just difference of opinions or 
rough
consensus as you seem to claim (if i undestood you correctly).

Cheers
Toerless

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 07:19:20AM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 
> > i have never considered writng one.  sour grapes make bad wine.
> 
> Errors do happen, for everyone and for all organisations. We do not treat 
> appeals as sour grapes at the IESG, IAB or other places that receive them. We 
> consider them an opportunity to review whether something was missed. At the 
> same time, we do not intend to give special treatment to an argument just 
> because it is labeled as an appeal. Sometimes legitimate differences of 
> opinion are just that, and consensus was rough.
> 
> Jari
> 

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, eck...@cisco.com
It's much easier to have an opinion if you do not understand the problem.

Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Warren Kumari]

On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Pete Resnick  wrote:

> On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many 
>> succeed?
>>   
> 
> My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html:
> 
> Accepted: 6
> Denied: 25
> Withdrawn: 1
> 
> One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were denied. One 
> appellant appealed 4 times, all denied. One appellant appealed 3 times, all 
> denied.
> 
> At least two of the accepted appeals resulted in a different remedy than 
> requested by the appellant (i.e., adding an IESG Note to a document instead 
> of making other changes or rejecting the document).
> 
> At least two of the denied appeals were on strictly procedural grounds; one 
> came over two months after the action, one was appealing an IAB decision that 
> was out of jurisdiction for the IESG to decide.
> 
> Interpret the above as you see fit.

Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and 
ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?"

Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference.

W


> 
> pr
> 
> -- 
> Pete Resnick
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
> 

--
It is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe.  It is equally vain
to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead.
--  E.W Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Fwd: Doug Engelbart

[Dave Crocker]

From: Christina Engelbart 
>
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father

Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep peacefully at
home last night. His health had been deteriorating of late, and took
turn for worse on the weekend. I will circle back around soon, for now
just wanted to give you all advance notice and look forward to
discussing your thoughts as I am a bit fuzzy at present.



Besides the considerable technical contributions of Doug's project at 
SRI, theirs was a group that did much to create the open and 
collaborative tone of the Internet that we've come to consider as 
automatic and natural, but were unusual in those days.


As a junior staffer responsible for documentation at the UCLA Arpanet 
project, I used the SRI-ARC NLS system tools over the net.  Partly for 
the capabilities, but partly because it was always a cool group to 
interact with.


d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net



--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
 wrote:

> Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all
> has appealed and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of
> this club?"

I am honored to be a member of that club.   Remembering that
appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
vital, part of our process.  We probably don't have enough of
them.  Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.

In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
list every appeal since 2002.  If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
collection of categories.  The web page lists only those that
were escalated to full IESG review.  That is important for two
reasons:

* The majority of appeals, and a larger majority of those that
are consistent with community consensus or technical
reasonableness, are resolved well before the issues involved
come to the formal attention of the full IESG.  If an issue is
appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the
IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory
resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in
every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not
show up in the list on the web page or statistics derived from
it.

* A few minutes of thought will probably suffice to show you
that appeals that have significant merit are far more likely to
be resolved at stages prior to full IESG review.   By contrast,
a hypothetical appeal that was wholly without merit, or even
filed with the intent of annoying the IESG, is almost certain to
reach the IESG and end up on the list, badly distorting the
actual situation.

best,
   john

p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and
not all appeals.



> Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well
> respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page
> is basically a handy kook reference.

Call for Comment on draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications-09 on "Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast"

[IAB Chair]

This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on "Architectural 
Considerations of IP Anycast" (draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications-09). 

The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC within 
the IAB stream, and is available for inspection here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications/

The Call for Comment will last until August 1, 2013. Please send comments to 
i...@iab.org or submit them via TRAC (see below). 

Russ Housley
IAB Chair

= = = = = = = = = =

Submitting Comments via TRAC

1. To submit an issue in TRAC, you first need to login to the IAB site on the 
tools server: 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iab/trac/login 

2. If you don't already have a login ID, you can obtain one by navigating to 
this site: 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newlogin 

3. Once you have obtained an account, and have logged in, you can file an issue 
by navigating to the ticket entry form: 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iab/trac/newticket 

4. When opening an issue: 
a. The Type: field should be set to "defect" for an issue with the current 
document text, or "enhancement" for a proposed addition of functionality (such 
as an additional requirement). 
b. The Priority: field is set based on the severity of the Issue. For example, 
editorial issues are typically "minor" or "trivial". 
c. The Milestone: field should be set to milestone1 (useless, I know). 
d. The Component: field should be set to the document you are filing the issue 
on. 
e. The Version: field should be set to "1.0". 
f. The Severity: field should be set to based on the status of the document 
(e.g. "In WG Last Call" for a document in IAB last call) 
g. The Keywords: and CC: fields can be left blank unless inspiration seizes 
you. 
h. The Assign To: field is generally filled in with the email address of the 
editor. 

5. Typically it won't be necessary to enclose a file with the ticket, but if 
you need to, select "I have files to attach to this ticket". 

6. If you want to preview your Issue, click on the "Preview" button. When 
you're ready to submit the issue, click on the "Create Ticket" button. 

7. If you want to update an issue, go to the "View Tickets" page: 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iab/trac/report/1 

Click on the ticket number you want to update, and then modify the ticket 
fields as required. 

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Dave Crocker]

On 7/3/2013 9:32 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

Interpret the above as you see fit.



As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a 
bit more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to 
find some criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants.


In this case, I think that a reasonable distinction could be made 
between real participants in the community, versus, u... others. A 
plausible-if-simplistic criterion could be noting whether the appellant 
had authored at least one RFC.


As with most heuristics, it doesn't provide a guarantee.  Still, it 
looks like a useful filter.


d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Sam Hartman]

> "John" == John C Klensin  writes:


Strong agreement.
I'm not currently a member of that club, although if I stick around the
IETF long enough it's bound to happen.
I've certainly received and reviewed appeals that I thought were a valid
contribution to the process.

Don't appeal if there is a better way to address your concerns, but if
an appeal is the right approach, then file one.

Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[SM]

At 03:39 03-07-2013, William McCall wrote:
I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty 
hilarious stuff in there. I feel this contributor's frustration 
though (even though the IESG is right).


The decision of the respected members of the IESG was 
predictable.  There may be a minor issue.  I cannot comment about that.


The appellant mentioned that he worked hard and he has been 
excluded.  In my opinion any other contributor might be frustrated in 
similar circumstances.  The IETF is a place of many 
misunderstandings.  Maybe one day something good will come out of all that.


At 09:54 03-07-2013, Toerless Eckert wrote:
To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has 
for providing recognition
to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as 
recognition for that contribution
is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it 
will negatively impact
the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see. 
Unless a contributor has
a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts, 
its most likely not worth
their time to fight / improve documents without better means of 
recognition than how its
defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing 
recognition for their contribution

to their employer/sponsor.


Yes.

There are more incentives not to perform a critical review of a draft 
instead of doing the reverse.  If contributors operate solely for 
business reasons it can lead to IETF structural issues.


At 11:10 03-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:

I am honored to be a member of that club.   Remembering that


:-)


appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
vital, part of our process.  We probably don't have enough of
them.  Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.


Yes.


come to the formal attention of the full IESG.  If an issue is
appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the
IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory
resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in
every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not


Agreed.

Sometimes a gesture of goodwill is all that it takes.

Regards,
-sm  

Re: Fwd: Doug Engelbart

[Bob Braden]

Wikipedia defines "genius" as "a person who displays exceptional 
intellectual ability, creativity, or originality"
All three applied to Doug Engelbart. He belongs up there with other 
creative  geniuses I have had the privilege of meeting during 50 years 
in computing -- Al Perlis,   Dick Hamming, John McCarthy,and Don Knuth 
come immediately to mind.


Bob Braden'

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Ted Lemon]

On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Dave Crocker  wrote:
> As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a bit 
> more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to find some 
> criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants.

Yup.   E.g., it's worth reading the IESG response to John Klensin's appeal, and 
also the IESG response to Dean's most recent appeal.   I wasn't on the IESG for 
either of these, so I have no attachment to the text as written, but in both 
cases it seems very clear to me that the right thing was done, and that the 
responses were well reasoned and thorough.

Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Pete Resnick]

On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
  wrote:

   

Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask 
yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?"

Other than a*very*  small minority of well known and well respected folk 
thehttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html  page is basically a handy kook 
reference.
 


I think this is a bit overstated. There are 14 unique names of 
appellants (2 of which are groups of appellants). As I stated, 3 of 
those appellants account for 19 appeals, all denied. Perhaps you don't 
want to be part of the club with those 3 who make up 60% of the 
appealing, but if you simply remove those, you get:


13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in 
between appeals)

1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided
6 appeals accepted
6 appeals denied.

So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Of the rest, 
over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and long-time 
participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were 
denied and half were accepted.


So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are 
accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing 
issues to the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, 
and the cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That 
is, there's a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG 
agrees the rest of us in the IETF have missed.


I'd be part of that club.


I am honored to be a member of that club.   Remembering that
appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
vital, part of our process.  We probably don't have enough of
them.  Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.
   


Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are 
outliers that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't 
take away from those who are using it for its designed purpose.



In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
list every appeal since 2002.  If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
collection of categories.  The web page lists only those that
were escalated to full IESG review.


Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, 
or ISOC BoT as "appeals". The rest of the "discussions" are simply part 
of "dispute" or "disagreement" resolution.


But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution 
takes place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a 
formal appeal.



p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and
not all appeals.
   


Good idea.

pr

--
Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

+1

And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.

If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are
not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a
mutual appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as
possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual
appreciation society.




On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> **
> On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari 
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>  Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed 
> and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?"
>
> Other than a **very** small minority of well known and well respected folk 
> the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook 
> reference.
>
>
>
> I think this is a bit overstated. There are 14 unique names of appellants
> (2 of which are groups of appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants
> account for 19 appeals, all denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of
> the club with those 3 who make up 60% of the appealing, but if you simply
> remove those, you get:
>
> 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in
> between appeals)
> 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided
> 6 appeals accepted
> 6 appeals denied.
>
> So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Of the rest, over
> half I would instantly recognize as well-known and long-time participants,
> and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were denied and half were
> accepted.
>
> So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are
> accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues
> to the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the
> cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is,
> there's a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees
> the rest of us in the IETF have missed.
>
> I'd be part of that club.
>
>
>  I am honored to be a member of that club.   Remembering that
> appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
> a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
> vital, part of our process.  We probably don't have enough of
> them.  Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
> will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
> suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.
>
>
>
> Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers
> that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away
> from those who are using it for its designed purpose.
>
>
>  In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
> list every appeal since 2002.  If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
> 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
> collection of categories.  The web page lists only those that
> were escalated to full IESG review.
>
>
> Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB,
> or ISOC BoT as "appeals". The rest of the "discussions" are simply part of
> "dispute" or "disagreement" resolution.
>
> But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution
> takes place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal
> appeal.
>
>
>  p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
> understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
> on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
> represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and
> not all appeals.
>
>
>
> Good idea.
>
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick  
> 
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Eliot Lear]

No hat on and I'm not commenting on the specific case at hand.

On the general point, I think it's better to err a bit toward the
generous side.  As an author I use as a rule of thumb whether or not I
or the working group has taken someone's suggestion and put it into
text.  And it has to be more than editorial.  A missing "," doesn't get
you into acknowlegments, but highlighting confusion or clarifying
language probably does.

Eliot

Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Michael StJohns]

Before we go down this rathole too far again -

1) If you want to second guess the working group, AD and IESG, then the best 
approach is to probably review the bidding by reading the emails on the working 
group list and then forming an opinion based on that record.  I have and I'm 
pretty content with the current result.

2) With respect to credit, I would add that even to be considered for it a 
contributor's balance of payments on a document, standard etc needs to be 
substantially net positive.  If you're trying to claim credit for a reasonable 
suggestion, but its one of 10s or 100s of unreasonable ones, and you've pretty 
much disrupted the working group while making said suggestions. well why 
reward that?

3) I think we need to continue to give each WG and each AD deference to their 
established ways of proceeding - unless and until there is some determination 
supported by facts that there is a problem.  


Mike





At 04:08 PM 7/3/2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
>No hat on and I'm not commenting on the specific case at hand.
>
>On the general point, I think it's better to err a bit toward the
>generous side.  As an author I use as a rule of thumb whether or not I
>or the working group has taken someone's suggestion and put it into
>text.  And it has to be more than editorial.  A missing "," doesn't get
>you into acknowlegments, but highlighting confusion or clarifying
>language probably does.
>
>Eliot

IETF 87 Registration Suspended

[IETF Administrative Director]

Registration for IETF87 in Berlin has been suspended to consider the impact 
of a change in the VAT rules on Registration Fees.  We expect registration 
to open as soon as this matter has been clarified.

Ray
IETF Administrative Director

Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Warren Kumari]

On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker  wrote:

> +1 
> 
> And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs 
> have turned down and then been proven right years later.
> 
> If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are not 
> adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a mutual 
> appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as 
> possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual 
> appreciation society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick  
> wrote:
> On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
>> 
>> 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed 
>>> and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?"
>>> 
>>> Other than a 
>>> *very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
>>>  page is basically a handy kook reference.
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> I think this is a bit overstated.

Yes. It was a flippant response and there should probably have been a smiley 
somewhere in it...


> There are 14 unique names of appellants (2 of which are groups of 
> appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants account for 19 appeals, all 
> denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of the club with those 3 who make 
> up 60% of the appealing,

Yup, that is the club I was meaning.

> but if you simply remove those, you get:
> 
> 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in between 
> appeals)
> 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided
> 6 appeals accepted
> 6 appeals denied.
> 
> So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers.

Yeah, you are right.
I was simply looking at the list of repeats. 

> Of the rest, over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and 
> long-time participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were 
> denied and half were accepted.
> 
> So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are 
> accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues to 
> the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the 
> cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is, there's 
> a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees the rest of 
> us in the IETF have missed.
> 
> I'd be part of that club.

Yup, fair 'nuff -- as would I.

> 
> 
>> I am honored to be a member of that club.   Remembering that
>> appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting
>> a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps
>> vital, part of our process.  We probably don't have enough of
>> them.  Effectively telling people to not appeal because they
>> will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by
>> suppressing what might be legitimate concerns.
>>   
>> 
> 
> Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers 
> that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away 
> from those who are using it for its designed purpose.

Agreed. The dispute / appeals process is important, and needed -- it has 
served, and I'm sure will continue to serve, a useful purpose. 



But, before filing an appeal I think one should take a step back, wait a day or 
three to calm down and ask oneself:
A: is this really worthy of an appeal? 
B: how / why did we end up here? 
C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11? 
D: have I tried to resolve this without resorting to appeals? really?
E: do I actually understand how this IETF thingie works?  
F: was there any sort of process violation or am I simply annoyed that no-one 
likes / listens to me?
G: have I filed more appeals than actual contributions?
H: does my appeal text Contain Randomly capitalized Text or excessive 
exclamation marks? Have I made up words?
I: am I grandstanding?
J: am I simply on the rough side of consensus?
K: is this really worthy of an appeal? 


W
> 
> 
>> In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
>> list every appeal since 2002.  If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
>> 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
>> collection of categories.  The web page lists only those that
>> were escalated to full IESG review.
>> 
> 
> Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, or 
> ISOC BoT as "appeals". The rest of the "discussions" are simply part of 
> "dispute" or "disagreement" resolution.
> 
> But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution takes 
> place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal appeal.
> 
> 
>> p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
>> understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
>> on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
>> represen

Re: Doug Engelbart

[Douglas Otis]

On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Bob Braden  wrote:

> 
> Wikipedia defines "genius" as "a person who displays exceptional intellectual 
> ability, creativity, or originality"
> All three applied to Doug Engelbart. He belongs up there with other creative  
> geniuses I have had the privilege of meeting during 50 years in computing -- 
> Al Perlis,   Dick Hamming, John McCarthy,and Don Knuth come immediately to 
> mind.


Dear Bob,

Here is a video of Doug Engelbar's 1968 demo of SRI's work.
http://vimeo.com/32381658

In the early seventies, most work used mini computers where faults were 
diagnosed using the front key panel and bit light displays.  I even had the 
misfortune of debugging early production of MITS Altar systems that were flakey 
by connecting front panel LEDs directly to the data bus. As a consultant in 
1985, I worked at Xerox Parc on the Xerox Star 6085 adding a cartridge tape 
drive.   They relied on the tape drive to distribute OS updates in a timely 
fashion because their 10 Mbit Ethernet offered less than 3 Mbit throughput 
across dozens of test systems.  By then, they were using Bill English's mouse 
design.  Being relatively sheltered in the lab, this was my first encounter 
with a GUI interface.  I needed to access my test programs but was dumbfounded 
by a display that did nothing when you typed on the keyboard.  The secret was 
to drag the arrow icon over the terminal icon and click.  This finally provided 
access to a terminal display that responded to the keyboard.

Until then, my editing made use of multiple screens navigated with the use of 
key combinations.  To this day, I don't think GUI really offered improved 
productivity.  It was sexy and you did not need to remember all those damn key 
sequences.  The systems at Xerox Parc made use of the SRI developments which 
then spawned Windows and Macs introducing personal computers to the masses.  
Keeping the masses safe has been an ongoing struggle requiring creative genius 
often evidenced in algorithms rather than hardware.  The evolution of computers 
has been awe inspiring, and Steve Jobs proved genius makes a difference in 
hardware as well.   As Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further it is by 
standing on the shoulders of giants."

Regards,
Douglas Otis

RE: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[l.wood]

> C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11? 

I think there's a new club of one.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Doug Barton]

On 07/03/2013 05:20 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:

C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11?


I think there's a new club of one.


Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay 
more attention to this thread ...

Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Dave Cridland]

Yeah, but we don't actually count the clubs, so it's okay.

Re: IETF 87 Registration Suspended

[Barry Leiba]

> Registration for IETF87 in Berlin has been suspended to consider the impact
> of a change in the VAT rules on Registration Fees.  We expect registration
> to open as soon as this matter has been clarified.

I don't understand what the effect of VAT rules is on money collected
in the U.S. in U.S. Dollars.

But I guess we'll hear more soon.

Barry

Re: [IETF] [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Ted Lemon]

On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Doug Barton  wrote:
> Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay more 
> attention to this thread ...

If you don't read ietf, you don't get to participate in the consensus... ;)

Re: IETF 87 Registration Suspended

[Martin J. Dürst]

Hello Barry,

On 2013/07/04 9:39, Barry Leiba wrote:

Registration for IETF87 in Berlin has been suspended to consider the impact
of a change in the VAT rules on Registration Fees.  We expect registration
to open as soon as this matter has been clarified.


I don't understand what the effect of VAT rules is on money collected
in the U.S. in U.S. Dollars.


It's usual in the U.S. that taxes on goods bought and sold are levied as 
a consumption tax, at the place (i.e. in the state) where the object is 
bought (and therefore presumably consumed/used).


However, that's not a given, and VAT stands for value added tax, and the 
value addition/consumption can be presumed to happen at the meeting in 
Berlin (and there's no need for consensus here, it's the opinion of the 
local tax authority that counts :-().


Regards,   Martin.


But I guess we'll hear more soon.

Barry