Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 10:50 19-06-2008, Russ Housley wrote:
>That seems to be the crux of the appeal.  Does every possible thing
>upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a
>written rule?  Don't we select leaders because we have some
>confidence in their judgement?

A process gets constrained if we have to go by written rules 
only.  However, without such rules one has to resort to second 
guessing to determine what the rules might be.  Written rules are a 
way to set the expectations and bring in openness and fairness into 
the process.  The decision-making process is hampered if the rules 
are too rigid.  That's why guiding principles are defined.

By selecting leaders, we are demonstrating confidence in them.  As in 
any process, disputes may arise.  Sometimes, a person might not agree 
with a particular decision.  The person may ask the leaders to review 
their decision.

Appeals are there for a purpose.  It provides a recourse if the 
person is not satisfied with a judgement.  Some may view it as a 
process failure.  Others may read it as a motion of no confidence in 
the judgement of the leaders.  It is better to hear both sides of the 
argument instead of jumping to hasty conclusions.  Whether it is in a 
Working Group discussion, on a Last Call or anywhere throughout the 
process, there are bound to be differences of opinion.  Sometimes 
this entails challenging current dogma or some higher 
authority.  This is after all a battleground of ideas which are 
judged on their technical merits.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf