Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, at 06:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > The overall point remains, does RFC 2026 apply here? If not, the the only appeal body would seem to be the IAB.
> 
> It will be what we define it to be at the end of this discussion. 

Yes.

FWIW, Russ' characterization missed program leads.  But talking to chairs and any AD/lead, while codified in 2026, happens before the truly formal part of the process.  It's an important piece for a couple of reasons, so I will amend the proposal to recognize that.

The structure of the appeals chain is informal (chair, AD), formal (IESG), in event of process failure (IAB), in event of the process itself being wrong (ISOC Board).  The structure I proposed covered the formal piece, but neglected the informal piece and did not provide safeguards for the process pieces, mostly because I hadn't thought the whole thing through.

I stand by the formal piece.  My logic is that we should not create a new body for this process.  Of the bodies we have, the IAB is most suitable.

I haven't any firm stance on what to do about a process backstop for the IAB.

> I'd certainly be inclined to put the ISOC Board at the end of any 
> appeal chain, but it's a new thing, not part of the IETF standards 
> process.

I'd be reluctant to ask the ISOC Board to participate in this process any more than they would in the IETF.  Keeping their involvement to arbitration of disputes over the process itself seems appropriate.