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 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided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
