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] 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] 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

[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

[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: [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: [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

[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: [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.

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