Re: Post-Last-Call versions of documents and change logs: suggestion to the IESG

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, 26 June, 2022 14:00 -0400 Keith Moore
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 6/26/22 12:43, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> As I think Keith has been trying to point out, the edge cases
>> rarely represent bad behavior, only difference in judgment.
> 
> While I agree with that statement, I'm concerned about both
> differences in judgment and actual (hopefully very rare) bad
> behavior.

We may disagree about this, but let me make another small
distinction.  With the understanding that I think all three are
likely to be very rare, I think there are actually three
separate cases:

(1) Some important information that is clear  to the reviewer/
protestor but that slipped through the process cracks.  Such
information might bear on the _correctness_ of the changes.

(2) A decision to move forward despite difference of opinion
about the _importance_ of the changes.

(3) Bad and/or malicious behavior, including behavior as a
consequence of improper influence(s).

Now, I think (1) and (2) may reasonably be treated as "bad (or
differences in) judgment" in spite of being rather different in
substance.  They are situations in which, despite good
intentions and reasonable efforts, the process has failed to
work as we might expect.  They are the issues my note was
intended to address and with which I think a few small
adjustments in how we do things might help (both identify and
solve).  Looking narrowly at document approval, even if one AD
were behaving badly, failure by the rest of the IESG to be aware
of that and effectively push back would fall into one of those
categories, probably (1), and the best remedy for document
processing would be to draw their attention to that problem as
efficiently (and with as little uproar) as possible.  Dealing
with the problem AD(s) would be a separate matter.

For the third -- to which my note and suggestions were
deliberately not addressed -- I think we would be far better off
with the conventional appeal (and, if it were usable, recall)
procedure.   If a document is being moved forward for bad
reasons, reasons the rest of the IESG is either deliberately
ignoring or in which they are complicit, then that behavior
should be challenged with an appeal, precisely because that
process is very public, a response is required, and because, if
the IESG remains part of the problem, there are clear mechanisms
for taking the issue to the IAB and, if necessary and the
perceived problems involve unfairness, to the ISOC BoT.  If
conclusion were that the AD(s) involved had behaved badly, that
would presumably not only force careful reconsideration of the
document but would create a record that I assume the next
relevant Nomcom would not easily ignore.

Because it seems to me extremely unlikely (although not
impossible) that behavior that bad would occur for the first
time after Last Call was initiated, affecting document review
and late changes, I'd also prefer to see such complaints/
appeals filed not much later than when the Last Call is
announced rather than waiting until the last possible moment,
only because trying to kill the document at the very end of the
process could also be viewed as bad behavior.  True or not, such
a claim would likely bias against an open and fair review of the
appeal.  However, again, not the subject of my suggestions or
the concerns that drove them.

best,
   john