On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs > have turned down and then been proven right years later. > > If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are not > adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a mutual > appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as > possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual > appreciation society. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> > wrote: > On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari >> >> <war...@kumari.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed >>> and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?" >>> >>> Other than a >>> *very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the >>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html >>> page is basically a handy kook reference. >>> >>> > > I think this is a bit overstated. Yes. It was a flippant response and there should probably have been a smiley somewhere in it... > There are 14 unique names of appellants (2 of which are groups of > appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants account for 19 appeals, all > denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of the club with those 3 who make > up 60% of the appealing, Yup, that is the club I was meaning. > but if you simply remove those, you get: > > 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in between > appeals) > 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided > 6 appeals accepted > 6 appeals denied. > > So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Yeah, you are right. I was simply looking at the list of repeats. > Of the rest, over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and > long-time participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were > denied and half were accepted. > > So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are > accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues to > the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the > cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is, there's > a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees the rest of > us in the IETF have missed. > > I'd be part of that club. Yup, fair 'nuff -- as would I. > > >> I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that >> appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting >> a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps >> vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of >> them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they >> will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by >> suppressing what might be legitimate concerns. >> >> > > Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers > that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away > from those who are using it for its designed purpose. Agreed. The dispute / appeals process is important, and needed -- it has served, and I'm sure will continue to serve, a useful purpose. But, before filing an appeal I think one should take a step back, wait a day or three to calm down and ask oneself: A: is this really worthy of an appeal? B: how / why did we end up here? C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11? D: have I tried to resolve this without resorting to appeals? really? E: do I actually understand how this IETF thingie works? F: was there any sort of process violation or am I simply annoyed that no-one likes / listens to me? G: have I filed more appeals than actual contributions? H: does my appeal text Contain Randomly capitalized Text or excessive exclamation marks? Have I made up words? I: am I grandstanding? J: am I simply on the rough side of consensus? K: is this really worthy of an appeal? W > > >> In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_ >> list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC >> 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a >> collection of categories. The web page lists only those that >> were escalated to full IESG review. >> > > Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, or > ISOC BoT as "appeals". The rest of the "discussions" are simply part of > "dispute" or "disagreement" resolution. > > But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution takes > place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal appeal. > > >> p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community >> understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note >> on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list >> represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and >> not all appeals. >> >> > > Good idea. > > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick > <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - > +1 (858)651-4478 > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ -- "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -- Terry Pratchett
