Appeal regarding IESG decision on the GROW WG (David Meyer; 2003-11-15) - 2003-11-15
Appeal - 2003-11-15
Date: 15. november 2003 09:47 -0800
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: chair@ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, grow@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Formal Appeal regarding IESG decision on the GROW WG
IESG,
This note requests that the IESG review and reverse its
decision regarding closure of the GROW working group.
In particular, the decision, while possibly consistent
with a strict interpretation of BCP's 9 and 25, is clearly
outside the spirit of openness, fairness, and transparency
that is at the core of our process. Indeed, section 3.4
of BCP 25 states that
"Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF
process. As much as possible the process is designed so
that compromises can be made, and genuine consensus
achieved; however, there are times when even the most
reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree.
To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such
conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review
and discussion."
"...conflicts must be resolved by a process of open
review and discussion." Did that happen in this
case? Clearly not (that much is a matter of record). In
fact, I was never notified, and the first information I
received was on the WG mailing list. See
http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00075.html
In addition, based on the facts of this case, I believe
the decision by the AD to be incorrect (one might read
the minutes posted to the mailing list as well, or poll
the participants). Add to all of this the fact that the
AD was standing down in a matter of 93 minutes after the
notice was posted, and we have a situation that is
outside the spirit of the IETF's Internet Standards
Process. At the very least, these actions would seem to
be inconsistent with goals of openness, fairness, and
transparency codified in the cited text.
Clearly then, what is at stake here is much more than the
future of the GROW working group (again, whether or not
that group is reopened is an ancillary question). Rather,
it would seem only reasonable that we consider having a
procedural fallback for all the standards process
decisions of an AD who has announced a resignation (i.e.,
should be subject to IESG confirmation). So at the very
least, I am making this appeal to start our thinking
about this topic.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Dave