Re: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,
At 06:48 AM 11-03-2020, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>I think you're probably right. I know I've chaired in the past when 
>>I didn't see the signs of bad things happening and failed to get 
>>out in front of it. But the appeal, even if fruitless in the end, 
>>would have at least made the chair, the AD, and IESG do a bit of 
>>post-mortem to figure out what went wrong, so we should figure out 
>>some way to make them less painful (as per your last paragraph).
>
>In this case, going via the ISE is a fine solution, provided this path
>isn't suddently blocked in the future before publication of the
>document, and providing the ISE agrees to publish. I have no idea what
>we would have to do procedurally, if the ISE path fails for some reason.
>As we cannot really appeal the ISE decision, we'd have to go back to the
>WG for an appeal, which also seems to not be the right place.

That publication path might work.  However, it does not fix the 
systemic problem.  I did not include some points from your message, 
e.g. reduced participation due to demotivation.

The point which Pete was making is that disputes are part of the 
process and it is expected that there are adequate procedures in 
place to ensure appropriate resolution of issue(s).

Some time back, I went through a working group mailing list to try 
and identify what went wrong.  The turning point, i.e. one or more 
decision which might explain why things went wrong, was not 
clear.  I'd say that I should have raised a concern instead of going 
along with the decision.

Writing an appeal is more difficult than writing an IETF RFC.  As a 
point of information, there was an appeal about an ISE decision 
[1].  As such, there is evidence that there is a procedure which is 
applicable as a remedy.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2019/02/20190131-Independent-Submission-Process-Appeal.pdf