RE: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
--On tirsdag, februar 01, 2005 01:04:39 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads: In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. Rob and certainly I (when editing this) had to read this 2 or 3 times. We think that the following (in our view) purely editorial change would make it more readable: If a member of the IETF community questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines, or questions whether the IASA has created and maintained appropriate guidelines, he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. OK? Certainly OK with me. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
>From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads: > In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the > IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or > IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether > appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may > ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. > Rob and certainly I (when editing this) had to read this 2 or 3 times. We think that the following (in our view) purely editorial change would make it more readable: If a member of the IETF community questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines, or questions whether the IASA has created and maintained appropriate guidelines, he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. OK? Bert p.s. John, In my editing buffer I have also fixed the last para to make it "IAB and ISOC BoT" instead of "IESG and ISOC" -- latest tex from Harald from Monday): > Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. > > 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision > > The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the > performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD > will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational > decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be > developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. > > In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the > IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or > IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether > appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may > ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. > > The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include > a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation > of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the > BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation > could be rectified. All requests for review > will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these > requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up > to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, > based on the nature of the review request. > Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn > their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent > further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just > publish the review result and take no other action. > > If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response > to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by > appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals > procedures outlined > in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB > response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC > Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. > > The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the > IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing > BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the > reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs > governing IAOC actions should be changed. > It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines > to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to > re-consider their decision or action. > It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. > > In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the > reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or > action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration > and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this > action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of > the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- > related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, > performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). > > Comments? > > Harald > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Howdy, I can't entirely agree with the argumentation, in part because (and again this goes back to how the text first appeared) metrics are useful to establish the state of the system, whether to critique the state or simply understand it. Appeal is only one form of critique. That said -- I'm not planning to say any more on the subject. It's not something I'm suggesting should stop the document, either way! Leslie. John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 31 January, 2005 14:00 -0500 Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howdy, I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but I can live with that. WRT this: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or support them where appropriate. I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this time. Leslie, FWIW, in the spirit of Sam's note, I'd like to suggest that this doesn't belong in the document at all, but in some informal list of things we expect the IAD to do and will hold her or him (and the IAOC) accountable if enough of it isn't done. That is the "less text" rather than "no more" theme. I don't consider that a showstopper one way or the other, however... If it is to be put in as an IAD responsibility, it needs to be clear that "better measurement" is _not_ more important than getting the job done. My version of your comment about appeals is that, if the job is being done, and done well, meaningful appeals won't happen. If it is not being done, then the major benefit of extensive data is either to help prove that it isn't being done (which will probably be obvious) or to aid in telling those launching the appeal to go away... the latter if extensive, but irrelevant, data are collected. And I note that the original text did not require relevant metrics, interpretable metrics, or the like, just metrics. It shouldn't: those terms are nearly meaningless without careful definitions, and attempting to make those definitions would draw us into more and more detail that doesn't belong in the BCP even if we could agree on them.But "there will be metrics" don't necessarily aid in getting the job done and may actually impede it. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
--On Monday, 31 January, 2005 14:00 -0500 Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy, > > I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the > fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but > I can live with that. > > WRT this: > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this > section. > > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're > not critical. > > I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD > responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text > as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to > avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or > support them where appropriate. > > I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps > just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this > time. Leslie, FWIW, in the spirit of Sam's note, I'd like to suggest that this doesn't belong in the document at all, but in some informal list of things we expect the IAD to do and will hold her or him (and the IAOC) accountable if enough of it isn't done. That is the "less text" rather than "no more" theme. I don't consider that a showstopper one way or the other, however... If it is to be put in as an IAD responsibility, it needs to be clear that "better measurement" is _not_ more important than getting the job done. My version of your comment about appeals is that, if the job is being done, and done well, meaningful appeals won't happen. If it is not being done, then the major benefit of extensive data is either to help prove that it isn't being done (which will probably be obvious) or to aid in telling those launching the appeal to go away... the latter if extensive, but irrelevant, data are collected. And I note that the original text did not require relevant metrics, interpretable metrics, or the like, just metrics. It shouldn't: those terms are nearly meaningless without careful definitions, and attempting to make those definitions would draw us into more and more detail that doesn't belong in the BCP even if we could agree on them.But "there will be metrics" don't necessarily aid in getting the job done and may actually impede it. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Howdy, I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but I can live with that. WRT this: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or support them where appropriate. I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this time. Leslie. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously Wrong. I've tuned the text below to: - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. - Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path. - Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding - Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity that the BCPs should be changed" Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it. Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action. If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). Comments? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Harald, I still think this is a bad model, but I'm clearly (at least among those who are speaking up) in the minority on that. With one correction, and a last quibble, I think it is now at least consistent enough that, if it causes problems, we can get to the substance of them and fix it rather than getting tangled up with procedural quibbling. So I think we should go ahead. The correction: The last sentence should probably read "...may the IAB or ISOC BoT overturn...", since the IESG is not in the appeals chain. _The quibble_ (long, unfortunately, but I think worth understanding before we push forward). I expect this comment to be ignored in the rush to get the document out, and it can be fixed later if needed (and I imagine would be fixed after the first incident were one to occur), but want to get a concern on the record. One of the things with which a number of members of the community has been very concerned has been to prevent the ISOC BoT from meddling in the operations of the IASA. While I think other checks on them will prove adequate, I recognize a community concern when I see one. I don't see "review whether procedures were followed and, if not, send things back and tell them to review and reconsider their actions" to be significantly problematic on the "meddling" front, and that is all the authority the ISOC BoT has up to the beginning of that problematic last paragraph. But the last paragraph gives "the reviewing body" the authority to overturn IAOC decisions and requires consultation with the IAOC before doing so and the ISOC BoT is a reviewing body. Seriously paranoid scenario under the above model: The ISOC BoT takes a large overdose of drugs that induce a desire to go meddle in the IASA. On some pretense, one of their members or a designated stooge (all of whom are members of the community under our deliberately-vague rules) appeals an IAOC decision to the IAOC Chair, the IAB, and then to the ISOC BoT. The ISOC turns that "consultation" into a negotiation about decisions to possibly be overturned, procedural changes to be made in ways of doing things, etc., and we end up with a fairly full-scale license to meddle. I don't think this is likely to happen, but I don't like procedures that are subject to abuse when that opportunity can be easily avoided. Possible solution: permit _only_ the IAB to overturn a decision (exceptional circumstance, etc., text remains). If the ISOC BoT decides to reverse the IAB on an appeal, all they can do is what they are essentially restricted to doing under the standards process appeal chain: send the question back with instructions to reconsider. I think we can safely leave the question as to whether they send something back to the IAB or back directly to the IAOC up in the air. But giving them the authority, even under "exceptional circumstances", to reverse an IAOC decision, seems to me to violate the principles of separation that many people have felt strongly about. Of course, one could also fix this problem by losing the paragraph, but we have apparently decided against that. Finally, these little glitches (both the inclusion of "IESG" and the more complex question of principle, again point out the risks of trying to evolve a document this quickly. john --On Monday, 31 January, 2005 11:33 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving > the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out > that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type > of action is. And I still don't like it. > > Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. > > 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision > > The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for > the > performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the > IAOC and IAD > will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular > operational > decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines > should be > developed with public input. In all cases, they must be > made public. >... > In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems > reasonable, the > reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding > decision or > action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful > consideration > and consultation with the IAOC regarding the > ramifications of this > action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn > a decision of > the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a > personnel- > related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, > demotion, > performance reviews, salary adjustments, > etc.). > > Comments? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
This looks fine to me. Margaret At 11:33 AM +0100 1/31/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously Wrong. I've tuned the text below to: - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. - Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path. - Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding - Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity that the BCPs should be changed" Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it. Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action. If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). Comments? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Harald asks: > Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. ... > Comments? too many words for my liking but I can live with it (and the reasons behind the last paragraph are important to me) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously Wrong. I've tuned the text below to: - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. - Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path. - Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding - Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity that the BCPs should be changed" Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it. Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action. If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). Comments? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
