On Mar 10, 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> What I've encountered is that at the limit you have to appeal or give > up, and how well things go before you get to that stage depends on how > willing WG chairs and responsible AD are to actively mediate dispute > resolution. > > The case I felt went really badly was the TLS DNSSEC extension. I agree and while that case was bad, what’s worse is that no post-mortem was done here. I don’t think the IETF as an organization will take any lesson from this, and that in itself makes it likely the same mistakes will be made again. > So there was no question of appeal, really. I think also because in the appeal some of the same actors would appear. > Not sure how to make it better, except maybe thus: it should be possible > to get a review of how a dispute was resolved not so much as an appeal, > but as a way to remediate problems to help alleviate _next_ dispute. Going back to this thread, when I read the subject of resignation and the first email, it seemed like I just stumbled across a hallway fight - people that demand unreasonable things. I don’t know how this conflict went from nothing to asking for someone’s resignation but clearly more people should have been involved earlier to de-escalate this. maybe that was tried and just not visible here? It would be good if there had been some kind of log that could have been referenced so we could determine why this failed to de-escalate. Paul _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
