Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Nit pick:

> It absolutely makes the most
> sense for people to start with the IETF Chair

Actually, appeals (from WGs) start with an AD, so maybe this one
should start with the General Area AD? (I know it's the same person,
but wearing a slightly different hat.)

Better, perhaps: start with an AD, normally the General Area AD.
If the nature of the appeal personally involves the IETF Chair, the
appeal should start with some other AD.

Regards
   Brian

On 10-Sep-21 02:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> On 2021-9-8, at 23:41, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>   Because an SAA serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if
>>>   the IETF Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the SAA
>>>   team - any SAA decision could be appealed to the IAB.  The IAB shall
>>>   then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of
>>>   its own choosing.
>>>
>>> Why are we varying from the normal appeal process here?  One reason to
>>> keep the IETF Chair out of the operation is exactly so the first
>>> appeal *can* go to the IETF Chair, as it normally would.  Then to the
>>> plenary IESG, and then to the IAB.  I don't see a good reason to
>>> change that process.
>>
>> This was also brought up by Rob during his AD review. This text is based on the current text in BCP45, which says:
>>
>>    The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
>>    appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
>>    or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a
>>    pattern of abuse.  They are encouraged to take into account the
>>    overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether
>>    particular postings are an aberration or typical.  Complaints
>>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^
>>    regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB.
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I assumed that "complaints" were supposed to be appeals, because
>> otherwise it's undefined what the IAB was supposed to do with these
>> complaints.
>>
>> I'm fully OK with using the regular appeals process here, but since it
>> would be a change from the original BCP45 and the intent was to do a
>> minimal bis, I didn't make that change.
> 
> But you've already changed "complaints" to "could be appealed", which
> moves from something generic and undefined to something formal and
> documented.  And, in fact, this document is so markedly different to
> RFC 3005 that I couldn't use a DIFF at all, so I see the changes as
> not minimal.  Please re-consider this point, and make it clear that
> the normal appeals process applies.  It absolutely makes the most
> sense for people to start with the IETF Chair -- or at the least, the
> IESG -- before going to the IAB.  Appeals work best when there's more
> than one stage to them.
> 
> Barry
>