Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 03:39 03-07-2013, William McCall wrote:
>I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty 
>hilarious stuff in there. I feel this contributor's frustration 
>though (even though the IESG is right).

The decision of the respected members of the IESG was 
predictable.  There may be a minor issue.  I cannot comment about that.

The appellant mentioned that he worked hard and he has been 
excluded.  In my opinion any other contributor might be frustrated in 
similar circumstances.  The IETF is a place of many 
misunderstandings.  Maybe one day something good will come out of all that.

At 09:54 03-07-2013, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has 
>for providing recognition
>to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as 
>recognition for that contribution
>is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it 
>will negatively impact
>the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see. 
>Unless a contributor has
>a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts, 
>its most likely not worth
>their time to fight / improve documents without better means of 
>recognition than how its
>defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing 
>recognition for their contribution
>to their employer/sponsor.

Yes.

There are more incentives not to perform a critical review of a draft 
instead of doing the reverse.  If contributors operate solely for 
business reasons it can lead to IETF structural issues.

At 11:10 03-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>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.

Yes.

>come to the formal attention of the full IESG.  If an issue is
>appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the
>IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory
>resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in
>every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not

Agreed.

Sometimes a gesture of goodwill is all that it takes.

Regards,
-sm