Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com 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 My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html: Accepted: 6 Denied: 25 Withdrawn: 1 One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were denied.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 Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ 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
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net 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.
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com 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: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net 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 Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
+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 presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote: ** On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumariwar...@kumari.net war...@kumari.net 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 http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com 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 presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net 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 represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and not all appeals. Good
RE: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
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
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
Yeah, but we don't actually count the clubs, so it's okay.
Re: [IETF] [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us 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... ;)
