Re: [spring] Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B2F3A0E58; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vwlCwDDJmmuC; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bongo.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (bongo.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FAB73A0E60; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DB5360DCA; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:06:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-13-25.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.13.25]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AE1F8360E84; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:06:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a26.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:06:01 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Scare-Callous: 1f9d8adb0f356bf8_1583892361204_4085394454
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1583892361204:3815613312
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1583892361203
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE1E7FE3B; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=5S4ud4FL3OU1wh Ii4ccRPVwePGg=; b=hFEQbpCGdLYBy2Lv9E9eRmUaJt1y9ZomlULjgg/YyHQzu1 0xxzpvJPQ56/fwmiC5SiVxzQyk4QeA+mDEXZYrbCF+FGesmiYNckLNOM1MXw5ATM UlWolIKxbrR2CtPAWB+kOb6em99Wcod5W+/rRUNXkHJ3G+Pm/ZBKPHSadeNc0=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27FC27FE41; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:05:51 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a26
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, Alex Bogdanov <bogdanov=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200311020550.GB18021@localhost>
References: <C7B7787A-48E5-407F-9E81-BDEC2F1B2169@steffann.nl> <6651697D-A892-4CAB-BDC1-E385750294D3@gmail.com> <a708fc17-c799-2767-4a35-033b063456f5@pi.nu> <CA+q+MpU6-36xTzZL_-B-9fG8atfOiOF5-rdxFFVQV9_y8GOd8Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200310154115.GX18021@localhost> <EF46D631-4553-4378-9260-6E23BE94B14E@episteme.net> <20200310184518.GY18021@localhost> <604af73d-98a6-5188-79a1-4aa4d4e1d581@gmail.com> <20200310235523.GA18021@localhost> <73567bfa-2c75-bd94-36b9-8d597ae831a5@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <73567bfa-2c75-bd94-36b9-8d597ae831a5@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddvuddggedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhirggsrdhorhhgnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/NG_gjpD-g22T0KJlNIGabCuXaSQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:06:08 -0000

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:23:17PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On two specific points:
> 
> On 11-Mar-20 12:55, Nico Williams wrote:
> ...
> > Q: How many appeals have there been, and how many have succeeded?
> 
> Officially, the history is at:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/appeals/
> https://www.iab.org/appeals/
> 
> I think a lot of the responses are midway between "success" and "failure".

I'll take a look, thanks.  (I have looked here before, but never made a
tally of results.)

> > But perhaps we can do post-mortems as a lighter-weight relief process,
> 
> On the surface that's an attractive idea, but if it is to be taken
> seriously it would need just about as much work as an appeal.

Perhaps so, but it might be more appealing (punny) than appealing on
account of it being less disruptive to the work in question.  Moreover,
an ombudsman could conduct a review with relatively little effort on the
part of the participants.  The outcome would be a report, not a
potential reversal or rehashing of past decisions, but future behavior
might be modified.

Nico
--