Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

On 6 nov 2006, at 22.05, Patrik Fältström wrote:


On 17 okt 2006, at 09.33, John C Klensin wrote:


Of course, as suggested in earlier notes, I'd find the idea of
endorsements ("supporters") completely acceptable and even a
good idea (i) if anyone in who participates actively in the IETF
could do an endorsement, (ii) if there were no restriction on
repeat endorsements, (iii) if the endorsements were expected to
contain analysis and information that actually contributed to
the consideration of the appeal, and (iv) if the whole
endorsement idea had been sufficient thought through that we
could have confidence that requests for endorsements did not set
off discussions firestorms on the IETF list.


The reason why I like the "number of people endorsing the appeal  
must be greater than N" is because that is for me a simple  
objective rule that forces the (individual) person that appeals  
first talk with others, and agree with others on the content of the  
appeal itself.


So, I support the suggestion from Olaf.


I would just like to voice that I agree with Patrik and supports  
Olaf's draft as well!


- kurtis -
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Patrik Fältström]

On 17 okt 2006, at 09.33, John C Klensin wrote:


Of course, as suggested in earlier notes, I'd find the idea of
endorsements ("supporters") completely acceptable and even a
good idea (i) if anyone in who participates actively in the IETF
could do an endorsement, (ii) if there were no restriction on
repeat endorsements, (iii) if the endorsements were expected to
contain analysis and information that actually contributed to
the consideration of the appeal, and (iv) if the whole
endorsement idea had been sufficient thought through that we
could have confidence that requests for endorsements did not set
off discussions firestorms on the IETF list.


The reason why I like the "number of people endorsing the appeal must  
be greater than N" is because that is for me a simple objective rule  
that forces the (individual) person that appeals first talk with  
others, and agree with others on the content of the appeal itself.


So, I support the suggestion from Olaf.

   Patrik


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Ned Freed]

On 17 okt 2006, at 09.33, John C Klensin wrote:



> Of course, as suggested in earlier notes, I'd find the idea of
> endorsements ("supporters") completely acceptable and even a
> good idea (i) if anyone in who participates actively in the IETF
> could do an endorsement, (ii) if there were no restriction on
> repeat endorsements, (iii) if the endorsements were expected to
> contain analysis and information that actually contributed to
> the consideration of the appeal, and (iv) if the whole
> endorsement idea had been sufficient thought through that we
> could have confidence that requests for endorsements did not set
> off discussions firestorms on the IETF list.



The reason why I like the "number of people endorsing the appeal must
be greater than N" is because that is for me a simple objective rule
that forces the (individual) person that appeals first talk with
others, and agree with others on the content of the appeal itself.



So, I support the suggestion from Olaf.


I'm not convinced this is going to reduce the number of appeals much if at all,
but I think this is about as far as we dare go.

Ned

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Qualified participant: Was RE: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

The Oxford Union Society is the worlds oldest existing debating society

Even though the Union has members there is an additional qualification to stand 
for election, a member must have spoken at two debates in the term they wish to 
stand before the close of hustings. These are 'qualified members'.


It seems to me that the same principle has already been established with 
NOMCON. 

I don't think that you can apply such criteria to the appeals process unless 
you first apply it to other elements of ietf participation. Otherwise you will 
end up with serious liability issues. 



> -Original Message-
> From: David W. Hankins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 1:04 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
> > 
> > ...it's just wrong.
> 
> I think he's got a good idea.  It maybe could use some tweaking.
> 
> The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to 
> its constituency and serve only to waste its (donated) time-dollars.
> 
> This includes but is not limited to: appeals from total nuts.
> 
> One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in 
> this draft, is to limit appeals to only those made by mixed nuts.
> 
> I think it would be more productive to suggest alternative 
> tactics than to ask Olafur to withdraw his draft.  We would 
> all like to know what other options there are.
> 
> > I didn't try to find three "paying members" to support that 
> opinion, 
> > and nobody else is "qualified" to support it :-(
> 
> ...nor would you have had to.
> 
> --
> ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay 
> Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP.  Email 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- 
> David W. Hankins  "If you don't do it right the first time,
> Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Frank Ellermann]

Sam Hartman wrote:
 
> I think the SPF and Sender ID appeals clearly had merit.

One decision said "we have found merit", and the other said
"we thank"...

> I'm not sure whether we rejected them though.

...the latter was in essence accepted, and the former also
had some effect, together resulting in the longest IESG note
I've seen anywhere so far.  The IAB decided that conflicting
IETF experiments are allowed if there's an appropriate IESG
disclaimer.  A kind of "kids, don't try this at home" maybe.

Frank



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Sam Hartman]

> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

John> And, if deciding which appeals are vexatious and which ones
John> are ok is too burdensome --especially relative to hearing a
John> few more appeals-- then, IMO, we shouldn't be spending time
John> on trying to figure out ways to make appeals harder.

I agree with you.

I think for several recent IESg appeals, there would be unanimous
support on the IESG for the proposition that considering the appeal
did not help the IETF or its processes.

In cases like that, it seems like having a fast track to get rid of
appeals is beneficial.  The main question in my mind is what mechanism
we use to prevent the appealed body from abusing this mechanism.

I don't think fast track mechanisms are needed for appeals to WG
chairs or ADs.  If the appeal is without merit, it takes the AD very
little time to write up a brief note denying the appeal.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, 17 October, 2006 11:10 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Michael>   Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
> 
> Yes.  I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way.  I
> personally think that Jefsey's appeal against the LTRU
> registry doc set was a reasonable appeal although we declined
> to make any changes. I suspect many people may disagree with
> me and argue that this appeal was without merit.
> 
> I think the SPF and Sender ID appeals clearly had merit.  I'm
> not sure whether we rejected them though.

Sam,

For me, the bottom-line question in each of those cases is
either:

(1) Whether you think the IETF and its program and
processes were injured or improved by the questions
being raised on appeal, and

(2) Whether you think the appellants intent was negative
enough, relative to general IETF functioning, that you
think measures should be taken to discourage them from
filing further appeals or to make it more difficult for
them to do so. 

You pick which question you like.  To me, they are essentially
equivalent.  And, to me, unless the answer to the chosen
question is "yes", then Olaf's proposal, as written, either adds
bureaucracy without accomplishing anything or, worse,
discourages the filing of appeals that are actually beneficial
to the community --in terms of the discussion they cause if not
in changing a particular decision.

If "without merit" doesn't describe the condition I'm looking
for well, then let's work on devising a different term and test.

And, if deciding which appeals are vexatious and which ones are
ok is too burdensome --especially relative to hearing a few more
appeals-- then, IMO, we shouldn't be spending time on trying to
figure out ways to make appeals harder.

To me, discouraging behavior we want (and, IMO, need) to
encourage in order to make things a little bit more difficult
for a few bad guys is a fairly poor tradeoff.  If we had a lot
of bad guy-induced problems that were paralyzing us and no other
ideas, then it might be worth it.  But, if we  don't have that
level of obviously bad behavior, we should be considering
options that focus on the behavior we consider unacceptable, not
on making things more difficult for everyone.  I guess that, if
we could figure out a way to do it, that would make me a
supporter of Mike's suggestions -- either the "community
service" version or the "orange jumpsuit" one.

Of course, as suggested in earlier notes, I'd find the idea of
endorsements ("supporters") completely acceptable and even a
good idea (i) if anyone in who participates actively in the IETF
could do an endorsement, (ii) if there were no restriction on
repeat endorsements, (iii) if the endorsements were expected to
contain analysis and information that actually contributed to
the consideration of the appeal, and (iv) if the whole
endorsement idea had been sufficient thought through that we
could have confidence that requests for endorsements did not set
off discussions firestorms on the IETF list.   I haven't seen
that proposal yet, and, for me, trying to design it falls under
the moratorium on process work I'm trying to enforce on myself.

regards,
 john



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Michael Thomas]

Gray, Eric wrote:


Sam, et al,

I doubt that noting an appeal has been determined to have merit
is especially useful.  As Sam implies below, it is possible to have 
controversy over this point, and any controversy is likely to mean no

annotation of "merit" will occur in many cases.

Ignoring for the moment the potential for recursion (do we need
to have supporters for the "merit" of an appeal after the fact?), it 
seems to me that it might be more useful to treat any appeal for which

there was not an absolute consensus that "no merit" could be ascribed
to the appeal, as an appeal with merit.
 



The reason I asked is because this is in the context of a (d)dos attack on
the appeals process. Some people are clearly more litigious than others, but
if the appeal at least has merit that seems a lot more acceptable than
those who keep bringing up baseless junk.

Maybe we need an IESG work duty program for problem appealers. No more
appeals until you've done X amount of community duty. I guess that requiring
that they wear orange jumpsuites might be a little over the top.

  Mike


--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:11 AM

--> To: Michael Thomas
--> Cc: John C Klensin; Ned Freed; ietf@ietf.org; Eliot Lear
--> Subject: Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support
--> 
--> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--> 
--> Michael> John C Klensin wrote:

--> >> (1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be triggered
--> >> only is someone shows symptoms of being a vexatious 
--> appellant.

--> >> People who are entering their first appeals don't trigger it.
--> >> People whose last appeal was successful, even in part (that
--> >> would need to be defined, of course, and that might not be
--> >> easy) don't trigger it.  The only folks who need to look for
--> >> supporters are those who have appealed before and 
--> whose appeals

--> >> have been rejected as without merit.
--> >> 
--> >> 
--> 
--> Michael>   Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
--> 
--> Yes.  I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way.  I

--> personally think that Jefsey's appeal against the LTRU registry doc
--> set was a reasonable appeal although we declined to make 
--> any changes.
--> I suspect many people may disagree with me and argue that 
--> this appeal

--> was without merit.
--> 
--> I think the SPF and Sender ID appeals clearly had merit.  
--> I'm not sure

--> whether we rejected them though.
--> 
--> 
--> ___

--> 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: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Gray, Eric]

Sam, et al,

I doubt that noting an appeal has been determined to have merit
is especially useful.  As Sam implies below, it is possible to have 
controversy over this point, and any controversy is likely to mean no
annotation of "merit" will occur in many cases.

Ignoring for the moment the potential for recursion (do we need
to have supporters for the "merit" of an appeal after the fact?), it 
seems to me that it might be more useful to treat any appeal for which
there was not an absolute consensus that "no merit" could be ascribed
to the appeal, as an appeal with merit.

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:11 AM
--> To: Michael Thomas
--> Cc: John C Klensin; Ned Freed; ietf@ietf.org; Eliot Lear
--> Subject: Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support
--> 
--> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--> 
--> Michael> John C Klensin wrote:
--> >> (1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be triggered
--> >> only is someone shows symptoms of being a vexatious 
--> appellant.
--> >> People who are entering their first appeals don't trigger it.
--> >> People whose last appeal was successful, even in part (that
--> >> would need to be defined, of course, and that might not be
--> >> easy) don't trigger it.  The only folks who need to look for
--> >> supporters are those who have appealed before and 
--> whose appeals
--> >> have been rejected as without merit.
--> >> 
--> >> 
--> 
--> Michael>   Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
--> 
--> Yes.  I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way.  I
--> personally think that Jefsey's appeal against the LTRU registry doc
--> set was a reasonable appeal although we declined to make 
--> any changes.
--> I suspect many people may disagree with me and argue that 
--> this appeal
--> was without merit.
--> 
--> I think the SPF and Sender ID appeals clearly had merit.  
--> I'm not sure
--> whether we rejected them though.
--> 
--> 
--> ___
--> 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: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Sam Hartman]

> "Michael" == Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Michael> John C Klensin wrote:
>> (1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be triggered
>> only is someone shows symptoms of being a vexatious appellant.
>> People who are entering their first appeals don't trigger it.
>> People whose last appeal was successful, even in part (that
>> would need to be defined, of course, and that might not be
>> easy) don't trigger it.  The only folks who need to look for
>> supporters are those who have appealed before and whose appeals
>> have been rejected as without merit.
>> 
>> 

Michael>   Can an appeal be rejected with merit?

Yes.  I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way.  I
personally think that Jefsey's appeal against the LTRU registry doc
set was a reasonable appeal although we declined to make any changes.
I suspect many people may disagree with me and argue that this appeal
was without merit.

I think the SPF and Sender ID appeals clearly had merit.  I'm not sure
whether we rejected them though.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Gray, Eric]

This reply was inadvertently blind copied to the ietf mailing list.
I meant to have it plain copied, but dropped it a line to low...

--
Eric 
 

--> -Original Message-
--> From: Gray, Eric 
--> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:04 PM
--> To: 'Olaf M. Kolkman'
--> Subject: RE: draft-kolkman-appeal-support
--> 
--> I think, to address the comment, you would have to change the phrase to
--> end with "there are not sufficient qualified supporters."
--> 
--> > David wrote:
--> > > Perhaps Olafur might even be convinced to produce text in his draft
--> > > that encourages individuals to provide their support in proxy, or to
--> > > allow IAB/IESG members to waive.
--> > 
--> > _Olaf_ :-) wrote in the I-D:
--> > "  Note that the appeal body may choose to consider an appeal even
when
--> > there are not sufficient supporters."
-->  
--> 
--> --> -Original Message-
--> --> From: Olaf M. Kolkman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> --> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:20 PM
--> --> To: ietf@ietf.org
--> --> Subject: Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support
--> --> 
--> --> ___
--> --> 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: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Olaf M. Kolkman]

Thanks to all that replied (and thanks to David for spawning a new  
subject header).

Below are a few thoughts and replies to things people brought up.

---

In a private communication somebody suggested that this draft is  
targeted to one or two specific individuals. That is not the case.


---

Frank wrote:

And please withdraw...
If this turns out a extremely bad idea then I'll leave the draft be  
and we have the archive to proof that this idea has been raised and  
shot. You just shot the first bullet :-) .


---

Ned wrote:
In any case, I think there is far more danger associated with  
excluding the

wanted than there is to including the unwanted.


As for my motivation to choose NOMCOM eligibility for supporters.

My underlying requirement is that supporters should understand the  
IETF culture and its structures. Besides, IETF participants should  
know the supporters. The idea behind that is that it creates a  
certain level of accountability between peers. All in all, supporters  
should individuals that can be clearly identified as stakeholder in  
the IETF (John used "materially concerned party").


I hope that we agree on that requirement; now we only have to define  
what makes a stakeholder (the devil in the detail)...


It is clear that anybody in a 'leadership' role can be clearly and  
unambiguously identified as stakeholder that understand IETF culture  
and structure. (All present and past WG-Chairs, IESG and IAB members,  
the draft should be clarified on this).


For non-leadership roles identifying stake-holders is more difficult.  
As far as I know there is only one _existing_ somewhat formal method  
to establish that; nomcom eligibility. I too, am hesitant with  
respect to using the nomcom criterion is the only  mechanism for  
which there is running code.


The immediate and obvious problem with the Nomcom criterion is that  
it excludes people that everybody knows are stake-holders  but never  
go to meetings, or go to them on less regular basis.  If there is an  
easy and unambiguous way to identify those IETF stakeholders I would  
want to include them. I've seen a few suggestions:

 - I have a feeling that writing an I-D puts the bar to low.
 - Having written an IETF-track document is a clear and unambiguous  
criterion. (Note that I used IETF-track here)
 - I do not think that membership of USENIX, IEEE, or other  
organizations helps to identify IETF stakeholders.


Have I missed suggestions?



In private communication it was also suggested that the supporters  
may should also take a role as mediator. I think that is not a  
requirement but I suppose that having the appellant talk to  
supporters may cause beneficial side effects.





John argued:

(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
triggered (...)


The problem I have with it is that it is a patch upon the patch.  
Besides, having an appeal denied is not always a _bad_ thing. I could  
imagine cases where one appeals because having the appeal denied  
actually clarifies how our procedures work.




(2) The definition of someone permitted to be a
"supporter" must, as several people have pointed out
(Ned, IMO, most eloquently), be broad enough to include
active IETF contributors who don't attend meetings.


I agree; see above.



One class of action that might need appealing would be a
procedural decision that would [further] impede the
ability of those people to effectively get work done in
the IETF and they _must_ have standing to appeal such
measures by themselves or in conjunction with others who
are similarly impacted.



I understand your concern, but I think/hope it is academic.

I hope that it is clear from the I-D that _anybody_ can appeal as  
long as there are two people willing to say "the appeal body should  
put time into looking at this". And I actually trust there will be  
sufficient people in the pool that understand that their default  
response should be "support" of the appeal. That trust, I realize, is  
not hardcoded in the process.




(...)   
(3) The idea that, if someone successfully appeals, or
supports an appeal, on one action, they should be
permanently barred from supporting similar appeals in
the future is seriously broken.


That is not what I intended, I mend to say:
If a supporter has supported an appellant, that same supporter cannot  
support that particular appellant again. The supporter can support  
other appellants.



It could only have a
chilling effect on the generation of appeals, legitimate
ones as well as bogus ones, because one would want to
save endorsements for important-enough occasions.


As long as the pool of supporters is sufficiently large compared to  
the number of appeals from one appellant I do not think that will  
happen. We could set a time-out on the "supporter n

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, 16 October, 2006 14:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  >(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
>  >triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
>  >vexatious appellant.  People who are entering their
>  >first appeals don't trigger it.  People whose last
>  >appeal was successful, even in part (that would need to
>  >be defined, of course, and that might not be easy) don't
>  >trigger it.   The only folks who need to look for
>  >supporters are those who have appealed before and whose
>  >appeals have been rejected as without merit.
> 
> That's roughly why I put a section in
> draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes
> called "Single Dispute per Topic." We certainly need to create
> a
> disincentive to repetitious appeals IMHO. Requiring supporters
> may be a way to do that. John raises good points in his
> message.

Hmm.  Brief reflecting on this comment suggests something else
in line with my comment above.  I would see it as much more
reasonable to require supporters, endorsement, or even requiring
that a second party generate the formal appeal if an appeal is
lodged with the IESG, the IESG says "no, and without merit", and
the person involved wants to appeal to the IAB.

The trick here, I think, is to try to keep the number of appeals
that are either designed to create disruption or that have that
effect to a minimum while recognizing that it is very much in
the interest of the IETF to have an easily-exercised appeal
process for those who are acting in good faith to try to reverse
a misunderstanding, oversight, or process abuse that could not
be handled at an earlier stage.   One might even want to
separate the rules for technical appeals from those applicable
to appeals about process or abusive behavior, especially abusive
behavior at the WG level (i.e., without IESG members being
directly involved) and create a slightly higher bar for the
latter after ADs and the IETF Chair conclude there is no
problem... or maybe not.

Again, I think there are tradeoffs here but that we need to try
to understand the kinds of appeals we really want to have, and
have quickly and efficiently.  And then, whatever else we do, we
should be sure we don't create unintentional obstructions to
those types of appeals as side effects of making repeated and
disruptive abuses more difficult.

john


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Sandy Wills]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Michael Thomas wrote:

 Can an appeal be rejected with merit?


Sandy gave you the caricature response...


Well, if I wanted to give a technical example that was clear to all 
readers, I had to pick a technology that all readers were familiar with, 
right?  You use the tools appropiate for the job.



, but the short answer
is yes, if the IESG (or IAB) feels that the technical point in
the appeal is valid, but not serious enough to invalidate the
document. That's really what technical appeals are all about:
someone who believes that a valid technical issue has been
set aside when it shouldn't have been, and wants the IESG
(or IAB) to take another look.


Which, I believe, is what I said. :)

--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Brian E Carpenter]

John C Klensin wrote:
...
> Eliot,
>
> It seems to me that, if there is a "right track" here --and that
> is not obvious to me-- that you are on it or at least on a
> parallel one.   I suggest that implies several changes to the
> draft, YMMD:
>
>(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
>triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
>vexatious appellant.  People who are entering their
>first appeals don't trigger it.  People whose last
>appeal was successful, even in part (that would need to
>be defined, of course, and that might not be easy) don't
>trigger it.   The only folks who need to look for
>supporters are those who have appealed before and whose
>appeals have been rejected as without merit.

That's roughly why I put a section in draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes
called "Single Dispute per Topic." We certainly need to create a
disincentive to repetitious appeals IMHO. Requiring supporters
may be a way to do that. John raises good points in his message.

Michael Thomas wrote:
...
>   Can an appeal be rejected with merit?

Sandy gave you the caricature response, but the short answer
is yes, if the IESG (or IAB) feels that the technical point in
the appeal is valid, but not serious enough to invalidate the
document. That's really what technical appeals are all about:
someone who believes that a valid technical issue has been
set aside when it shouldn't have been, and wants the IESG
(or IAB) to take another look.

Ditto, if a process violation is not felt serious enough
to overturn a decision. As in: yes, we made a mistake,
but the end result is the same anyway.

   Brian

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Frank Ellermann]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> - "No problem, here's the pointer to my CV, here's 5 people who know
> both of us personally, if you need a copy of my driver's license just
> send me the fax number to send it to, what else can I do to help?"

That "no problem" is a problem.  If I manage to create a JPG of some
obscure document and send it to the IETF secretariat, what are they
supposed to do with it ?  For a German passport I could attach an URL
with "roll your own ID" instructions.  Otherwise I could send them some
Google search results "indicating" that I'm at least persistent, with a
slight preference for two "n" at end of my name.

If the secretariat goes to that trouble it should have more benefits,
e.g. coupled with a NomCom "population" list of all folks who went to
one of the last three IETF meetings.  Or with a list of mail addresses
used to submit I-Ds.  Or a way to send messages to authors using a
persistent URL or address (published in the I-D or RFC) and working
ten years later if the author still cares.

"Single login" could be used for lots of IETF services, but it's not
cheap.  Known services could cover "has a banking account" (but as long
as they don't try money laundering sock puppets can have many accounts)

> "For religious/political/conscience reasons I refuse to give out my
> identity to anyone, so rather than violate my r/p/c belief, I'll
> withdraw from the case.

Well, I've given up my Wikipedia account, deciding that their system is
not good enough for my believes, and that it can't be fixed.  The draft
in the subject line is worse.  On the other hand improving Brian's I-D
should be simple:  It might need something more substantial against any
"vexatious litigation", and one statement trying to forbid other ways
to appeal dubious decisions should be removed.

BTW, folks trying to write appeals can also learn to write drafts, if
you want to throttle appeals you might also need something similar for
publication requests (?)  Maybe simply demand that appeals - and while
we're at it interop reports - have to be formatted and published as I-D,
huge PDFs with the decent charme of "I could print my mail" are a pain.

Frank



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Harald Alvestrand]

  

> - supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a
> secretariat function of the IETF



...difficult, it reminds me of Usenet CSVs.  What do you have
in mind, a phone number offered for a verification call ?  They
would need to support different plausibility checks wrt WP:SOCK
  
In a quite specific situation I was involved with, several supporters of 
an "alternate" viewpoint offered to make verification calls.

Unfortunately they all had the same telephone number.

I find that generally the reaction from claimed identities falls into 
one of three distinct categories:


- "No problem, here's the pointer to my CV, here's 5 people who know 
both of us personally, if you need a copy of my driver's license just 
send me the fax number to send it to, what else can I do to help?"
- "For religious/political/conscience reasons I refuse to give out my 
identity to anyone, so rather than violate my r/p/c belief, I'll 
withdraw from the case. However, I understand your reasoning and respect 
your refusal to admit me as a party to the case."
- "mumble, mumble, mumble, civil rights, mumble, mumble, mumble, of 
course I am a separate person, mumble, mumble, mumble, what do you mean, 
how do you prove that you're not Bill Clinton, mumble mumble, what is 
this identity thing anyway?"


What I draw as conclusions from these 3 case should be obvious; I'm a 
little unhappy about not getting the full value of the input from the 
second class of people, but to the third class I say "good riddance".


 Harald



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Frank Ellermann]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> 9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism
> of waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action.

Depends, that 3710-thingy was quite spicy, and all I know about
"cancels" in the tools.ietf.org archive is that it's possible.

> - supporters are distinct human beings

WP:SOCK is okay...

> - supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a
> secretariat function of the IETF

...difficult, it reminds me of Usenet CSVs.  What do you have
in mind, a phone number offered for a verification call ?  They
would need to support different plausibility checks wrt WP:SOCK

> I might even toss in "has contributed to at least one IETF
> mailing list he's subscribed to".

That's simpler.

> The important point (to me) would be to shift appealants from
> a mode of "I am the lone voice of reason - if I am allowed to
> carry my arguments forward in front of a higher body, Truth 
> and Justice will prevail" to a mode where appealants think 
> "I need to check with a few other people that I'm right before
> progressing - perhaps my arguments are not compelling, or 
> perhaps I even might be wrong".

> It may cause reasonable people who are upset to think twice,

MAY as in "maybe not" ;-)  Maybe it's simpler today if folks
find the "procdoc-roadmap" with some bloody details not covered
by the new Tao.

Frank



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Sandy Wills]

Michael Thomas wrote:


John C Klensin wrote:
...The only folks who need to look for supporters are those who 
have appealed before and whose appeals have been rejected as 
without merit.


Can an appeal be rejected with merit?



Certainly.

A simplistic created-on-the-spot example:

The IETF publishes RFC 8214, on "Lessons Learned About Hosting an IETF
Social", whereupon Ima Complainer appeals specification 8.3.2a
"Construction of Corkscrews"  because it includes the verbage "Threads
must be right-handed, ie, the screw must travel INTO the cork when the
handle is turned clockwise."

Appeal one:
  "I represent Bob's Hardware Company (henceforth BHC), which has been
making left-handed corkscrews for 300 years, and they work fine.  All of
our customers prefer them, saying that our tools are the best they have
ever found.  Why are you suddenly making our standard product
'non-standard'?"

Rejection of Appeal one:
  "The IESG has determined that BHC is a traditional supplier of tools
designed specifically for left-handed users.  As such, we find that BHC
is an exception to the "general use" of these standards.  The appeal has
merit, but is rejected."

Appeal two:
  "Everyone in the IETF Social Planning Work Group has blue eyes, and as
such cannot be trusted.  Please push RFC 8214 back until we can get some
brown-eyed engineers on this WG."

Rejection of Appeal two"
   "The IESG has reviewed several personality to eye color studies, and
has been unable to find any correlation between eye color and integrity.
 The appeal is rejected as being without merit."

It might make sense to have a ruling something like, "any participant
can appeal any IETF document or decision, with the following limit:  The
 body appealed to may, at it's discretion, refuse to accept an appeal if
the appealer has had more appeals rejected without merit than all other
results."

This means that, if more than half of your appeals were RWOM, they _may_
refuse to hear you.  Nothing keeps you from getting someone else to
appeal for you.  It's just that, if someone with no history does this
for you, and it is RWOM, then they are 1 to 0, themselves.

Are we simply formalizing a reputation system here?  Don't we have
better things to do?

--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Michael Thomas]

John C Klensin wrote:


(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
vexatious appellant.  People who are entering their
first appeals don't trigger it.  People whose last
appeal was successful, even in part (that would need to
be defined, of course, and that might not be easy) don't
trigger it.   The only folks who need to look for
supporters are those who have appealed before and whose
appeals have been rejected as without merit.
 



  Can an appeal be rejected with merit?

  Mike



(2) The definition of someone permitted to be a
"supporter" must, as several people have pointed out
(Ned, IMO, most eloquently), be broad enough to include
active IETF contributors who don't attend meetings.
One class of action that might need appealing would be a
procedural decision that would [further] impede the
ability of those people to effectively get work done in
the IETF and they _must_ have standing to appeal such
measures by themselves or in conjunction with others who
are similarly impacted.

I would have no problem with a requirement that someone
actually be a human being with some active interest or
involvement in the IETF -- what some other standards
bodies describe as a "materially concerned party".  But
requiring meeting attendance as proof of that seems to
violate all sorts of IETF principles.

(3) The idea that, if someone successfully appeals, or
supports an appeal, on one action, they should be
permanently barred from supporting similar appeals in
the future is seriously broken.  It could only have a
chilling effect on the generation of appeals, legitimate
ones as well as bogus ones, because one would want to
save endorsements for important-enough occasions.  It is
also at variance with a principle that has been
discussed recently on the IETF list wrt mailing list
behavior and complaints: how an appeal is processed and
considered should depend on its substance and merits,
not on the identity of the submitter.  This is
particular important if someone who is relatively more
familiar with IETF processes and fluent in English is
asked to prepare an appeal on behalf of someone who is
not -- a situation that, if anything, we want to
encourage since I believe that well-drafted appeals tend
to take less IESG and IAB time than ones in which those
bodies have to spend time figuring out what the real
problem is or what is wanted.

Now, clearly, the above has the implication of "one free appeal
per customer".  If the bad guys whom Olaf is trying to protect
against got themselves organized into a cabal, they could manage
a denial of service attack.   But I'm not sure that is a real,
as distinct from theoretical risk and, more important, I think
it is a risk we have to run if we want to have a viable appeals
process.

However, as I read the above, I wonder if the model of the I-D
is backwards and your observation about "vexatious litigants"
should be carried a bit further.  Suppose we consider this
situation as somewhat more like the mailing list abuse issue
than one in which we assume that every person filing an appeal
is the enemy until proven otherwise.  If we adopt a model of
that sort, then:

We change the possible responses to an appeal from, broadly,
"yes" or "no" to "yes", "no", and "no, and this is irrational
and/or obviously totally without merit".  The latter, which
could itself be appealed but not by the subject (only by someone
else on his, her, or its behalf),  would imply something
analogous to posting restrictions: a period in which the person
was barred from appealing, or needed supporters, or something
else.  Similar to posting restrictions, the requirements/
barriers could be escalated if they needed to be applied
additional times.

That is obviously just an outline with a number of details that
would need filling in, but it seems to me it has the important
property of shifting the balance from "everyone who considers
filing an appeal is presumed to be an attacker on the process"
to "those who abuse the appeals process get their leashes
shortened".  Since I believe that the ability to easily appeal
silly or inappropriate actions is a key part of our process
model --one that wards off the need for much more heavyweight
and complex procedures-- it seems to me that is the right way to
balance things.

john

p.s. for those who have had in-the-hall discussions with me
about appeals and prevention of DoS attacks in the last few
years.  Yes, I have changed my mind.   Making things harder for
those who use the appeals mechanisms to insist that the IETF
follow its own pro

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Harald Alvestrand]

Frank Ellermann wrote:

Perhaps he could be also convinced to trash his draft.  I've
trashed an "3710-obsolete" draft (before publication - luck).

  
9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism of 
waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action.


that said, I'd be happy if the requirements were:

- supporters are distinct human beings
- supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a secretariat 
function of the IETF


I might even toss in "has contributed to at least one IETF mailing list 
he's subscribed to".


The important point (to me) would be to shift appealants from a mode of 
"I am the lone voice of reason - if I am allowed to carry my arguments 
forward in front of a higher body, Truth and Justice will prevail" to a 
mode where appealants think "I need to check with a few other people 
that I'm right before progressing - perhaps my arguments are not 
compelling, or perhaps I even might be wrong".


It may cause reasonable people who are upset to think twice, and should 
rarely block an appeal where there's a real dissent in the community.


(I leave it up to people's memories to recover which specific cases the 
conditions above are intended to address...)


   Harald



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[John C Klensin]

--On Saturday, 14 October, 2006 09:05 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ned,
> 
> I am torn with the proposal.  On the one hand, I am
> sympathetic to DDOS attacks on the process.  On the other
> hand, I agree with you that serious contributors need a way to
> appeal decisions.  In particular, I don't like the need to
> require support from additional serious members, and I would
> only support that if other avenues failed.
> 
> If we look by analogy at the legal system (always a hazardous
> thing), we see that there are often special rules in place
> when it comes to access to the courts for those who have been
> judged vexatious litigants.  We could do something similar.
> While that alone doesn't prevent me from creating an anonymous
> email address and filing an appeal, some rule around that plus
> some indication of previous participation would be useful.  So
> I would include a very liberal set of people, like those who
> have ever attended an IETF or produced an RFC or have been
> published in ACM, IEEE, USENIX, SAGE, and or some other list
> of credited networking organizations.  If you've shown that
> you've contributed to the community in some meaningful way
> then we should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Eliot,

It seems to me that, if there is a "right track" here --and that
is not obvious to me-- that you are on it or at least on a
parallel one.   I suggest that implies several changes to the
draft, YMMD:

(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
vexatious appellant.  People who are entering their
first appeals don't trigger it.  People whose last
appeal was successful, even in part (that would need to
be defined, of course, and that might not be easy) don't
trigger it.   The only folks who need to look for
supporters are those who have appealed before and whose
appeals have been rejected as without merit.

(2) The definition of someone permitted to be a
"supporter" must, as several people have pointed out
(Ned, IMO, most eloquently), be broad enough to include
active IETF contributors who don't attend meetings.
One class of action that might need appealing would be a
procedural decision that would [further] impede the
ability of those people to effectively get work done in
the IETF and they _must_ have standing to appeal such
measures by themselves or in conjunction with others who
are similarly impacted.

I would have no problem with a requirement that someone
actually be a human being with some active interest or
involvement in the IETF -- what some other standards
bodies describe as a "materially concerned party".  But
requiring meeting attendance as proof of that seems to
violate all sorts of IETF principles.

(3) The idea that, if someone successfully appeals, or
supports an appeal, on one action, they should be
permanently barred from supporting similar appeals in
the future is seriously broken.  It could only have a
chilling effect on the generation of appeals, legitimate
ones as well as bogus ones, because one would want to
save endorsements for important-enough occasions.  It is
also at variance with a principle that has been
discussed recently on the IETF list wrt mailing list
behavior and complaints: how an appeal is processed and
considered should depend on its substance and merits,
not on the identity of the submitter.  This is
particular important if someone who is relatively more
familiar with IETF processes and fluent in English is
asked to prepare an appeal on behalf of someone who is
not -- a situation that, if anything, we want to
encourage since I believe that well-drafted appeals tend
to take less IESG and IAB time than ones in which those
bodies have to spend time figuring out what the real
problem is or what is wanted.

Now, clearly, the above has the implication of "one free appeal
per customer".  If the bad guys whom Olaf is trying to protect
against got themselves organized into a cabal, they could manage
a denial of service attack.   But I'm not sure that is a real,
as distinct from theoretical risk and, more important, I think
it is a risk we have to run if we want to have a viable appeals
process.

However, as I read the above, I wonder if the model of the I-D
is backwards and your observation about "vexatious litigants"
should be carried a bit further.  Suppose we consider this
situation as somewhat more like the mailing list abuse issue
than one in which we assume that every person filing an appeal
is the enemy until proven otherwise.  If we adopt a model of
that sort, then:

We change the possible responses to 

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Eliot Lear]

Ned,

I am torn with the proposal.  On the one hand, I am sympathetic to DDOS
attacks on the process.  On the other hand, I agree with you that
serious contributors need a way to appeal decisions.  In particular, I
don't like the need to require support from additional serious members,
and I would only support that if other avenues failed.

If we look by analogy at the legal system (always a hazardous thing), we
see that there are often special rules in place when it comes to access
to the courts for those who have been judged vexatious litigants.  We
could do something similar.  While that alone doesn't prevent me from
creating an anonymous email address and filing an appeal, some rule
around that plus some indication of previous participation would be
useful.  So I would include a very liberal set of people, like those who
have ever attended an IETF or produced an RFC or have been published in
ACM, IEEE, USENIX, SAGE, and or some other list of credited networking
organizations.  If you've shown that you've contributed to the community
in some meaningful way then we should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Eliot

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Frank Ellermann]

David W. Hankins wrote:

> The definitions in Olafur's draft for qualified supporters
> shouldn't be considered exclusionary.

That's precisely how I understand them, and it's not hard to
guess which cases this tries to address.  It's also not hard
to guess which _unrelated_ 3.5 appeals I have in mind.

IIRC Brian mentioned that they need an open and transparent
dispute resolution process for the legal insurance.  And if
that's more expensive with the "paying-member-model" it's
even counterproductive.

> Perhaps Olafur might even be convinced to produce text in
> his draft that encourages individuals to provide their
> support in proxy, or to allow IAB/IESG members to waive.

Perhaps he could be also convinced to trash his draft.  I've
trashed an "3710-obsolete" draft (before publication - luck).

Frank, 



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Ned Freed]

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
> >
> > ...it's just wrong.

> I think he's got a good idea.  It maybe could use some tweaking.

A lot of tweaking is needed IMO. I have no problem with the idea of requiring
some measure of support for an appeal, but as usual the devil is in the 
details, and I think the current draft is badly off the mark in this regard.

The problem with using NOMCOM-eligibility is that there are plenty of serious
IETF participants who don't attend enough meetings to qualify. I'm already
uncomfortable that lack of attendance precludes NOMCOM participation, but there
is at least some justification in the NOMCOM case in that certain social skills
are needed by the various nominees, and good luck on assessing those in the
context of the IETF without having attended some meetings, and preferably
recent ones.

When it comes to appeals of IESG and IAB actions I don't think serious
participants who happens not to attend meetings should be placed at any sort of
disadvantage in regards to partipication.

I would be tempted to suggest a weaker version of the NOMCOM criteria,  e.g.,
having attended at least 3 out of the last 9 meetings, or even having attended
at least one meeting, were it not for the fact that there are some valuable
contributors who have never attended a meeting, period. Heck, this category
even includes the chairs for some _successful_ WGs. So I don't believe this
works either.

And weakening the criteria to simply be some form of participation, e.g. a
posting to some IETF list means you qualify, makes them effectively useless.

Perhaps the way to go is to simply says that you have to have some number of
identifiable supporters, never mind the qualifications of those supporters. But
would this actually reduce the number of bogus appeals? Others have suggested
that this will cause the people filing these appeals to band together. I
honestly have no idea if that would happen or not.

In any case, I think there is far more danger associated with excluding the
wanted than there is to including the unwanted.

> The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to its
> constituency and serve only to waste its (donated) time-dollars.

I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about this. The question is how to
get this effect without causing other, possibly worse, damage.

> This includes but is not limited to: appeals from total nuts.

> One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this
> draft, is to limit appeals to only those made by mixed nuts.

IMO it is not "perfectly acceptable" as presently described.

Ned

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Stephen Farrell]

Keith Moore wrote:
I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to 
 decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.


Me too. That'd be a move towards paid membership IMO and as was shown
with the recent NomCom selection, the record keeping involved can
lead to disputes.

If we take this apporach, (and I don't care really), then something
based on ever having written an RFC or an expired WG I-D would be
better; maybe combined with not having been barred from posting to an
(unrelated to the appeal) IETF list in the recent past. The person
could still be a nutcase, but at least they'd be a bona-fide IETF
nutcase:-)

S.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[David W. Hankins]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:03:39AM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this

s/Olafur/Olaf/g

How embarrassing.  Sorry, Olaf.

-- 
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP.  Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer   you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.   -- Jack T. Hankins


pgpFN2OZwLMXW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[David W. Hankins]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:16:53PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to 
>  decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.

Appropriate or not, it's not an effective way to distinguish nuts,
as it should not surprise you to learn that most of the people who
come to IETF meetings are nuts as well.

Nor does it have to be if the goal is to reduce the frequency of
incidence rather than a complete shut-out.  By asking for a 'conspiracy
of mixed nuts' rather than a 'single nut acting alone', the frequency of
incidence should be drastically reduced.

But, we mustn't let nuts use their mom as a supporter, or else such
conspiracies of mixed nuts would ultimately be the rule.  So, some
limitations must be made.

The definitions in Olafur's draft for qualified supporters shouldn't be
considered exclusionary.  People in that position can still participate
by expressing opinions, or possibly might convince someone else to offer
their support in proxy.

Perhaps Olafur might even be convinced to produce text in his draft
that encourages individuals to provide their support in proxy, or to
allow IAB/IESG members to waive.

-- 
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP.  Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer   you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.   -- Jack T. Hankins


pgpWNczhFGKEg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[Keith Moore]

yeah, I sympathize with the desire to be less vulnerable to asymmetric 
attacks, and also with the general notion that if your appeal has 
sufficient merit to sway the iesg, iab, etc then you can probably find 
some people outside those bodies who think your appeal has merit.


I also believe that if "just anyone" can declare that an appeal has 
merit, the nutcases will band together to support one another.


I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to 
 decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.


 Original Message 


On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support

...it's just wrong.


I think he's got a good idea.  It maybe could use some tweaking.

The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to its
constituency and serve only to waste its (donated) time-dollars.

This includes but is not limited to: appeals from total nuts.

One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this
draft, is to limit appeals to only those made by mixed nuts.

I think it would be more productive to suggest alternative tactics
than to ask Olafur to withdraw his draft.  We would all like to
know what other options there are.


I didn't try to find three "paying members" to
support that opinion, and nobody else is "qualified" to support it :-(


...nor would you have had to.





___
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: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

[David W. Hankins]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
> 
> ...it's just wrong.

I think he's got a good idea.  It maybe could use some tweaking.

The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to its
constituency and serve only to waste its (donated) time-dollars.

This includes but is not limited to: appeals from total nuts.

One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this
draft, is to limit appeals to only those made by mixed nuts.

I think it would be more productive to suggest alternative tactics
than to ask Olafur to withdraw his draft.  We would all like to
know what other options there are.

> I didn't try to find three "paying members" to
> support that opinion, and nobody else is "qualified" to support it :-(

...nor would you have had to.

-- 
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP.  Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer   you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.   -- Jack T. Hankins


pgpgEUoU6KKuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf