Re: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:54:36AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11-Mar-20 07:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> > If you get left on the rough side of consensus, whether rightly or
> > wrongly, and you wish to challenge this, it's really difficult.  You
> > might have to file an appeal, 
> 
> Well yes. There's no way round that - you're on the losing side, which
> has been a bad deal throughout human history. But at least there *is*
> an appeal process (which in practice there wouldn't be, if we used
> majority voting to make decisions). That doesn't indicate bias in
> the process.
> 
> > and if you do you'll annoy and anger
> > people who want their RFCs published a year ago.
> 
> Again, that doesn't indicate bias in the process.

It is a bias in the process.  And rightfully so IMO.  The point is that
to get relief requires sufficient motivation to seek it via an appeal.

Q: How many appeals have there been, and how many have succeeded?

But perhaps we can do post-mortems as a lighter-weight relief process,
where a reversal isn't the goal, but that a) it be determined if there
were errors (or perhaps harassment by the people complaining! it goes
both ways) and b) some chastisement.

> > What I've encountered is that at the limit you have to appeal or give
> > up, and how well things go before you get to that stage depends on how
> > willing WG chairs and responsible AD are to actively mediate dispute
> > resolution.
> 
> Of course. But isn't that exactly why the appeals process exists? To
> put pressure on chairs and ADs to mediate? I assure you that it's
> much more uncomfortable for them to handle a formal appeal than
> to try mediation.

But there is a social dynamic.  Appeal and become the bad guy, lose good
will, lose friends, and find your future participation affected.  We're
talking about people who must have their RFCs published!

> I'll stop there because I have precisely zero knowledge of the case
> you cite.

That's fair, and it would be best if we didn't discuss it in this thread
anyways -- its details are not germane, but that such a case exists in
the broad strokes I used to describe it, is germane to the point that
the process of obtaining relief is costly and non-trivial.

I'd settle for not having that happen again than for getting a do-over
with an appeal.

Nico
--