Re: [apps-review] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 10:24 27-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
>Talking with the Apps Area Directors is the first (and normally
>last) step on that path.  The difference is only the level of
>formality.  Remember that the purpose of the IETF Appeals model
>is to get a careful second look at areas of disagreement and to
>attempt to see if agreement can be reached, not to initiate or
>proceed with a judicial function of any sort.

Yes.

>I don't believe that anything improper has occurred in the
>review process or even in the IESG decision.   I appreciate your

Yes.

>I do believe that, if people feel strongly that accepting the
>document and registration was a seriously bad idea, even after
>they are sure they understand the nature of a provisional
>registration, then they should try to understand the IESG's
>reasoning from the Apps ADs and/or ask that the decision be
>reviewed.

My comments are not from a provisional registration angle.  It has 
been quite an effort to jump-start the team and to get the reviewers 
to do the assignments.  There were 36 assignments that have been 
completed and four I-Ds are still pending review.  If I do not help 
the reviewers get more information about the reasoning, there may be 
a feeling that doing the assignments is not worth the time and effort.

Being Team Lead can either be viewed as a career path or about 
helping the team.  I prefer to do the latter.  Based on my short 
experience of working with Alexey and Peter, I can say that they have 
helped a lot in getting the team working and they do take the reviews 
seriously.  Alexey has already replied to Tim's comment off-list.

>It would also be quite reasonable for people who find themselves
>in that position to request additional text -- in a revised
>announcement statement, in the registry, or in the document as
>it will be published -- to suggest that.  Whether that could be
>negotiated with the Apps ADs or required a formal appeal would
>be up to the ADs and the IESG.
>
>I am not personally convinced that either trying to get a
>different decision or trying to get more clear disclaimers or
>warnings into the text would be worthwhile.  But the IETF is
>periodically accused of having procedures that work only for
>those who know how to use them and I periodically feel an
>obligation to explain possibly-useful procedures to those whose
>only other recourse would be whining and/or ranting.

Thanks for explaining the procedures.

Best regards,
-sm