Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

+1

And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.

If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are
not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a
mutual appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as
possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual
appreciation society.




On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>wrote:

> **
> On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of this club?"
>
> Other than a **very** small minority of well known and well respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference.
>
>
>
> I think this is a bit overstated. There are 14 unique names of appellants
> (2 of which are groups of appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants
> account for 19 appeals, all denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of
> the club with those 3 who make up 60% of the appealing, but if you simply
> remove those, you get:
>
> 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in
> between appeals)
> 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided
> 6 appeals accepted
> 6 appeals denied.
>
> So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Of the rest, over
> half I would instantly recognize as well-known and long-time participants,
> and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were denied and half were
> accepted.
>
> So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are
> accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues
> to the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the
> cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is,
> there's a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees
> the rest of us in the IETF have missed.
>
> I'd be part of that club.
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>
> Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers
> that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away
> from those who are using it for its designed purpose.
>
>
>  In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_
> list every appeal since 2002.  If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC
> 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a
> collection of categories.  The web page lists only those that
> were escalated to full IESG review.
>
>
> Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB,
> or ISOC BoT as "appeals". The rest of the "discussions" are simply part of
> "dispute" or "disagreement" resolution.
>
> But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution
> takes place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal
> appeal.
>
>
>  p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community
> understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note
> on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list
> represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and
> not all appeals.
>
>
>
> Good idea.
>
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/