Subject: [Geopriv] Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:01:27 -0400

IESG Response to the Appeal Against the Removal of the Co-chairs of the
GEOPRIV Working Group

Introduction

   This is the IESG response to the appeal by Randall Gellens, Allison
   Mankin, and Andy Newton posted at:

      http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/IESG_Appeal_20070622-final.pdf

   Cullen Jennings recused from all discussion of this appeal.

   The appeal raises three major points for the IESG to address:

      1.  The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process;

      2.  The actions taken interfered with the consensus process; and

      3.  There is a conflict of interest.

   The appeal also proposes a remedy.  This response includes some
   comments about the proposed remedy.

1.  The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process

   RFC 2418 says:

      Working groups require considerable care and feeding.  In addition
to
      general participation, successful working groups benefit from the
      efforts of participants filling specific functional roles.  The Area

      Director must agree to the specific people performing the WG Chair,

      and Working Group Consultant roles, and they serve at the
discretion
      of the Area Director.

   Since all WG chairs "serve at the discretion of the Area Director,"
   they can be replaced at any time.  The previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs
   were told about their removal in private before the public
   announcement.  This action was not required, but it is the most
   polite way to handle the situation.  Perhaps the public announcement
   could have provided some rationale, but the authority to remove a WG
   chair is clear.

2.  The actions taken interfered with the consensus process

   The appeal claims that a sequence of events, including the
   replacement of the GEOPRIV WG chairs, interfered with the consensus
   process.  From the wording of the appeal, it is not clear which items
   in the sequence are offered as background.  It is clear that removal
   of the GEOPRIV WG chairs is claimed to have interfered.  Some of the
   events in the sequence occurred more than two months prior to the
   submission of the appeal, and it is recognized that these events are
   not subject to appeal.  Each of the items in the sequence is
   addressed for completeness.

2.1.  Changing of GEOPRIV WG session time at IETF 68

   It appears that many events lead to the unfortunate rescheduling the
   GEOPRIV session at IETF 68.  Andy's broken arm, schedule conflicts, a
   wedding, and airlines schedules impacted by bad weather on the East
   Coast of the United States were all contributing factors.  As a
   result, only one of the GEOPRIV co-chairs (Randy) was at the IETF 68
   meeting in Prague.  The RAI ADs were faced with a situation where
   either the SPEERMINT WG or the GEOPRIV WG was going to meet without
   any of their chairs present in the session.  With little time to make
   a decision, the RAI ADs chose to adjust the schedule so that
   SPEERMINT, the younger of the two WGs, would have a session where a
   WG chair could attend.

   Due to the schedule change, Randy was no longer able to attend the
   session.  The change created a conflict with LEMONADE, and Randy
   needed to be in the LEMONADE session.  However, the GEOPRIV WG co-
   chairs had already selected Henning Schulzrinne (the author of RELO),
   to co-chair the session with Randy.  The decision was made that Jon
   Peterson (one of the RAI ADs) would co-chair the session with
   Henning.

   Scheduling is a problem that faces all ADs.  This was a choice of the
   lesser of two evils.  In hindsight, it may not have been the best
   possible choice.  However, a reasonable decision was made.

2.2.  Changing of the GEOPRIV WG session agenda at IETF 68

   Discussion of Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7-LCP) was
   planned, but it is not clear from the agenda that a decision between
   HELD and RELO was planned.  As usual, the first agenda item was an
   agenda bash.  There was an agenda change that moved the discussion of
   location signing to the end of the session, but this change is not
   relevant to the appeal.

   The original agenda is available at:

      http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/geopriv.txt.

   The minutes summarize the agenda as:

      A. Agenda Bashing
      B. Document Status
      C. Future Directions
      D. L7-LCP Problem Statement & Requirements
      E. L7-LCP Protocol Selection
      F. Geo URI

   The agenda that was published prior to the meeting does not indicate
   that RELO would be discussed, and it does not include the "L7-LCP
   Protocol Selection" agenda item.  A participant could easily have
   been surprised when these topics were added during agenda bashing.

   Review of the audio stream of the agenda basing portion of the
   GEOPRIV WG session at IETF 68 makes it clear that all of the
   participants were made aware of the push for a decision.  No one
   spoke against this proposed change to the agenda, and no one hummed
   against the revised agenda when asked.

2.3.  Assessing the opinion at the GEOPRIV WG session at IETF 68

   Discussing the L7-LCP problem statement and HELD were clearly on the
   agenda that was posted prior to the meeting.  It is clear that people
   following the GEOPRIV WG knew HELD and RELO were the two HTTP L7-LCP
   candidates.  The appeal asserts that no decision should have been
   made at the WG session at IETF 68.  However, it was made clear
   through hums, that the people in the room felt they needed to make a
   protocol selection.  They clearly indicated that waiting for
   consensus on the requirements document was not needed.

   It was recognized that location signing was still a topic of active
   discussion.  However, the still-under-discussion problem statement
   document no longer included location signing as a requirement.  The
   GEOPRIV WG chose to remove it from the requirements between the -00
   and -01 drafts.  Draft -02 was available prior to this WG session.

   The appeal takes issue with the participation of Cullen Jennings in
   the counting of hands.  Ted Hardie and Cullen both helped the Acting
   GEOPRIV WG Session Chairs count hands.  RELO and HELD each got 22
   hands.  Yet, hums indicated that the people in the room wanted a
   decision.  They were faced with a tie.  To break the tie, Cullen cast
   a vote for RELO.  Rohan Mahy stated during the session that Cullen
   had previously indicated no technical preference between RELO and
   HELD.  However, Cullen did indicate that he believed that a decision
   had to be made.  In hindsight, Cullen regrets casting a vote.  In the
   end, Cullen's vote made no difference since votes from the Jabber
   room were used to break the tie.  By totaling the hands in the room
   and the Jabber room votes, HELD was declared the winner.

   The appeal questions the integrity of the Jabber process.  The belief
   is that most Jabber participants were listening to the real-time
   audio feed; therefore, they were not asked different questions.
   Rather, they were prompted to organize their responses.  The Acting
   GEOPRIV WG Session Chairs were satisfied that a plurality of opinion
   had emerged, and no one has challenged their assessment of the
   outcome.

   The appeal raises questions regarding RFC 3929.  However, RFC 3929
   was not employed.  Ted Hardie, the author of RFC 3929, explained
   during the session how the process used was not compatible with RFC
   3929.  Ted spoke quite clearly about the process that was proposed
   for selecting the protocol, and based on review of the audio stream
   the people in the room were in agreement with using the proposed
   process.

2.4.  Interfering with the GEOPRIV WG chairs' processes after IETF 68

   It is clear that Cullen Jennings was pushing the GEOPRIV WG to make
   progress.  Over the years, the GEOPRIV WG became a divisive group.
   Cullen was looking for closure on long-standing unresolved issues
   that were preventing the GEOPRIV WG from fulfilling their charter.
   Nearly every AD finds themselves in this situation at one time or
   another.

   On March 30, after the IETF 68 meeting in Prague, Cullen told the
   GEOPRIV WG co-chairs that he planned to relieve them of their
   positions.  The appeal states that a reason given for this decision
   was that the chairs should "never have allowed the HELD proposal to
   remain viable."  Cullen denies saying such a thing.  He also said,
   "I'm not sure what I said that could have been misinterpreted as
   meaning this."

   (Note: The IESG has no way to determine what was actually said during
   this discussion between Cullen, Randy, Allison, and Andy.)

   Cullen did not dictate the choice of document editor to the new
   GEOPRIV WG chair.  However, he readily admits that it was "obvious"
   to him that a good editor would be required.  According to Cullen, he
   asked the previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs if they had any suggestions.
   They had none.  Therefore, they engaged in a discussion of the
   qualities to look for in an editor.  Cullen suggested they consider
   Mary Barnes.  In a previous conversation with Mary, Cullen had asked
   her if she would be willing to be editor if the chairs asked her to
   do so, and she had indicated that she probably had time to take on
   the job.  Mary is not strongly connected to either of the proposals,
   is very organized, and is experienced at working as an editor on
   highly controversial proposals.  Cullen reports that the previous
   GEOPRIV WG co-chairs seemed to think Mary sounded like a good choice.
   The current GEOPRIV WG chair ended up choosing Mary, and he believes
   that Mary is the best person for the job.

   After IETF 68, the previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs began the process to
   confirm the direction that was set during the GEOPRIV WG session.
   They used a series of questions, giving mail list members a certain
   period of time to respond.  The previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs were
   replaced with the current GEOPRIV WG chair before this process was
   complete.  However, the current GEOPRIV WG chair continued the
   process.  At the end of the allotted time, the current GEOPRIV WG
   chair assessed the mail list traffic, and determined the consensus.
   No one, including the three appellants, has approached the current
   GEOPRIV WG chair to indicate disagreement with the recorded
   consensus.  Any disagreement with this consensus call should begin
   with the current GEOPRIV WG Chair, and then work its way up the chain
   if satisfaction is not found.  There is no evidence that the change
   of WG chairs during the consensus call had any impact on its outcome.

3.  There is a conflict of interest

   When dealing with conflict of interest, perception is just as
   important as reality.

   It seems that everyone agrees that the GEOPRIV WG has become divided
   into at least two camps on the HTTP L7-LCP issue.  The appeal refers
   to "the Cisco camp," and claims that Cullen used his IETF leadership
   position to support that camp.

   The appeal suggests that Cisco favors a particular L7-LCP solution.
   From the GEOPRIV WG history it is clear that participants from Cisco
   have advocated lower layer LCP approaches (such as DHCP), and
   therefore it is quite difficult to understand how Cullen's effort to
   force a choice between HELD and RELO supports the inferred Cisco
   agenda.  Since the core DHCP documents had long since been completed
   (RFC 3825 was published in July 2004), it is the opinion of the IESG
   that these actions by Cullen did not further any Cisco agenda and
   were instead targeted at timely completion of the GEOPRIV WG charter.

   The agenda that was posted prior to IETF 68 and the minutes reflect a
   time slot for Cullen Jennings to discuss "Future Directions."  The
   appeal says that Cullen used this time to seek acceptance of a DHCP
   extension.  This extension had not been previously discussed in the
   GEOPRIV WG and at the time had no associated Internet-Draft.
   However, review of the audio stream from the GEOPRIV WG session shows
   that very little time was spent discussing any aspect of DHCP.  After
   the meeting, James Polk wrote an individual submission which the
   GEOPRIV WG may or may not adopt to fill the identified hole.  This
   draft is not a subject of this appeal.

   The appeal states that the agenda slot was given to Cullen for
   validation of the current milestones.  Milestones were certainly not
   the focus of any discussion during the GEOPRIV WG session.  When
   asked about updates to GEOPRIV WG milestones, Cullen indicated that
   he was not prepared to address new milestones until outstanding
   critical work is complete.  There seems to be a serious
   miscommunication on this point.  The message referenced in the appeal
   is about updates to the milestones in the existing GEOPRIV WG
   charter.  The previous GEOPRIV WG co-chairs were not proposing new
   work items.  The proposed milestones can be found at:

      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02571.html

   The IESG believes that Cullen's actions are consistent with an AD
   that is pushing a divisive WG toward closure on chartered work.  The
   IESG also believes that the GEOPRIV WG milestones are seriously out
   of date, and they should be updated promptly.

4.  Proposed Remedy

   The proposed remedy is not appropriate.  Appeals are designed to
   allow the IETF to reconsider a decision and to correct a mistake.
   The remedy proposed in the appeal is to move the GEOPRIV WG from the
   RAI Area to another area.  This recommendation does not correct any
   mistakes that may have been made, nor does it consider the technical
   needs of the GEOPRIV WG.  Rather, it is an attempt to move the
   GEOPRIV WG to a place in the IETF organization where Cullen Jennings
   will have less influence.

   By the way, the question of transferring the GEOPRIV WG to the
   Applications Area has been discussed on at least one previous
   occasion.  The proposal was discussed by the RAI and Applications
   ADs, and they decided that the GEOPRIV WG fits well in the RAI Area.
   They recognized that the GEOPRIV WG has implications for things other
   than SIP and that it makes use of protocols developed in the
   Applications Area.  As a result of these discussions, Lisa Dusseault,
   one of the Applications ADs, agreed to be a technical advisor to the
   GEOPRIV WG.

   The IETF has at least two mechanisms to address concerns about
   recurring biased behavior of an AD.  While such concerns might be
   offered as rationale in an appeal, an appeal is not the best
   mechanism for addressing long-standing AD behavior concerns.  In the
   future, if anyone has such concerns, the IESG believes that these
   other mechanisms ought to be used to address them.  The first and
   least disruptive mechanism is input to the Nominations Committee
   (NomCom) when the offending AD is being considered for a subsequent
   term.  The second and much more radical mechanism is the recall
   process as described in RFC 3777.

5.  Conclusion

   For the reasons provided above, the appeal is denied.

   The IESG observes that the GEOPRIV WG milestones are out of date.  We
   encourage the RAI ADs to work with the current GEOPRIV WG chair to
   update them.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:49:44 -0700

I believe this response (I hope inadvertently) appears to remove a valuable
principle by which the IESG acted on appeals. 

I urge the IESG to reconsider the formulation of its response to the appeal
to clarify the issues raised below.

>   could have provided some rationale, but the authority to remove a WG

In this response, the IESG appears to have read the appeal to state that the
removal of the chairs was not within the authority of the Area Director.

The appeal statement:

http://www3.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/IESG_Appeal_20070622-final.pdf

does not support this reading.  It does not say that Area Directors
do not have the right to remove chairs, it says that the manner
and timing by which this was done interfered with the consensus process
inappropriately.  The remainder of the IESG statement below appears
to attempt to address the interference issue.   But in choosing to highlight
that all "WG chairs serve at the discretion of the Area Director",
the IESG appears to be saying that the personnel decisions of
an Area Director or the IESG are not subject to appeal.

During the time I served on the IESG, it was a general guideline that
*any decision* of an Area Director or the IESG was subject to appeal
to the IESG.  While this is a broad reading of RFC 2026, Section 6.5,
I think it is an important point and a principle worth retaining.  The
appeals process in the IETF is not simply a mechanism for establishing
who has what rights; it is a mechanism for conflict resolution.  By
making all decisions subject to it, we ensure that conflicts which arise
are dealt with as early as possible and with as little process as possible.

If members of the community believe that a personnel decision
was made in a way the interfered with the proper operation of the
IETF, I believe asking the IESG to attempt to resolve the conflict is
an appropriate thing to do.   This appeal response, which re-asserts the
authority of the AD to make the original decision, does not seem
to support this use of the IETF's normal conflict resolution mechanism.
Further, this appeal response appears to say that the only conflict resolution
mechanism open to those who disagree with a personnel decision
is to invoke one of the removal mechanisms for those who made it.

I hope that the IESG will  re-structure its response to this appeal
to re-affirm that the conflict resolution mechanisms of the IETF are
available for this purpose.  I also encourage the IESG (and, frankly,
the IETF community as a whole) to try to see the appeals process
as a way of resolving conflict, rather than a quasi-legal process for determining
whether a remedy will be granted.  I understand how previous appeals
have pushed everyone in that direction, but it is something we must
continue to resist.  I have worked with Allison, Andy, and Randy for
many years, as well as Cullen and Jon.  They are all experienced
IETF folks who have toiled for years to make things work; forcing them
into even more adversarial positions when conflicts do need resolution
is a mistake, at least I see it.

My thanks for your attention,
				regards,
					Ted

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:11:59 -0400

Ted, speaking as an individual.

I completely agree that personnel decisions of ADs should be able to
be appealed.  I actually considered proposing text modifications to
make it clear that there might be circumstances where it would be
appropriate for the IESG to resolve the conflict.

I and I suspect others were working on the "good enough" principle and
were trying to get a good enough response produced and not deal with
all potentially different future situations.

So, I do agree that at least from my standpoint this defect in the
response was inadvertent.

My preferred way forward would be for IESG members to individually
either agree or disagree with our reading of the purpose of the
appeals process.  I think that if the IESG is in broad agreement on
this point, reopening and rewording the response would not be an
effective use of time.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:16:07 -0400

Ted:

With great respect, I must disagree.  The appeal says: "It is the 
position of the appellants that this removal violates the IETF 
process by which working groups are governed."  This say to me that 
the appellants believe that Cullen Jennings violated IETF process by 
replacing the GEOPRIV WG Co-chairs at the time that he did so.  I 
personally reread many BCPs as part of this appeal review, and I 
could not find any process that was violated by this action.

You are correct that any action taken by an AD can be appealed.  In 
particular, RFC 2026 states:

    All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
    knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

In this particular appeal, there is a lot of background information 
that describes events that happened outside of the two month 
window.  These can only be taken as context for the actions under appeal.

Russ

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:11:37 -0700

At 1:16 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote:
>Ted:
>
>With great respect, I must disagree.  The appeal says: "It is the position of the appellants that this removal violates the IETF process by which working groups are governed."  This say to me that the appellants believe that Cullen Jennings violated IETF process by replacing the GEOPRIV WG Co-chairs at the time that he did so.  I personally reread many BCPs as part of this appeal review, and I could not find any process that was violated by this action.

Russ,
	With equal respect, that statement is part of a much larger context, and I think your reading
is too narrow.  The immediately prior paragraph says, to take one piece of context out:

>In summary, the Co-chairs of the GEOPRIV working group conferred via telephone with
>Cullen Jennings regarding irregularities of the GEOPRIV session at IETF 68. Mr.
>Jennings participated in the discussion (detailed below) and at the very end of the
>call, indicated that he desired to remove the Co-chairs. This was interpreted as a
>type of threat. The Co-chairs then published a message to the GEOPRIV mailing list
>describing the irregularities of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68, specifically in order
>to ensure that IETF process would be followed for the WG. Following this message,
>Mr. Jennings sent a strongly worded message to the IETF list, and he removed the
>Co-Chairs. This removal occurred during the time period when the Co-chairs were
>seeking mailing list consensus on the items discussed during the GEOPRIV session at
>IETF 68.

	The working group chairs are charged in our process with determining consensus of
working groups.  If  an AD removed working group chairs *in order to ensure that a specific
determination were made*, that would clearly be contrary to the way the IETF is meant to work,
no matter what the AD's baseline prerogatives for determining personnel would be.  (Note that
I am not saying that this what happened here, but this is a point where the issue raised would
be salient).  That action would be fundamentally a violation of the process for determining
working group consensus, as the AD would be ensuring a specific consensus call by putting in
someone willing to make that determination.
	An appeal response by the IESG that said that they did not believe that this is
what happened in this case seems to be what you intended (at least based on Sam's
response).  I must repeat, however, that this response appeared to me to focus instead on the
baseline prerogative of the AD over that issue. 

>You are correct that any action taken by an AD can be appealed.  In particular, RFC 2026 states:
>
>In this particular appeal, there is a lot of background information that describes events that happened outside of the two month window.  These can only be taken as context for the actions under appeal.

I appreciate your restatement of the important point that any action taken by an AD can be appealed,
as well as Sam's personal statement to the same effect.  If you are not willing to consider re-stating
this appeal, a short statement by the IESG to that effect would be welcome.  As it stands, statements
by individual IESG members have no binding effect on later IESGs and the community is not necessarily
notified when the interpretations change.

As  a concrete suggestion:

"The IESG re-affirms that its reading of RFC 2026 is that any action made by an Area
Director or the IESG may by made the subject of the conflict resolution mechanisms
set out in Section 6.5 of RFC 2026.  The IESG further wishes to highlight that the primary
aim of the appeals mechanism set out there is to resolve conflicts and move the IETF
as a whole towards consensus, and it urges all participants to approach them in that light."

			regards,
				Ted

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:49:01 -0400

Ted:

To begin with, I want to say that I agree with your perception of the 
appeal process.  It is an important conflict resolution tool.

The first thing that was done in the drafting of the appeal response 
was to list each of the claims in the appeal.  That is why the 
introduction lists them:

The appeal response addresses each of these points with much more 
attention to number 2.

>I must repeat, however, that this response appeared to me to focus 
>instead on the

I agree, the response to the first point, which was focused on the 
sentence that I quoted from the appeal in my previous message, was a 
reading on whether the act of replacing the GEOPRIV WG co-chairs 
violated IETF process or not.

However, the response to the second point, I believe, addresses the 
rest of the paragraph that you quoted.

> >You are correct that any action taken by an AD can be appealed.
>

I'd like to know if this is a topic of concern to people.

>approach them in that light."

I will put your proposed text on the IESG telechat agenda for 
consideration as an IESG statement.

Russ

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:27:45 -0700

At 3:49 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote:
>I will put your proposed text on the IESG telechat agenda for consideration as an IESG statement.
>

Thank you; I look forward to hearing the IESG's response.

				regards,
					Ted Hardie

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:50:45 +0300

Ted, Sam,

I also agree with your points, and yes, even personnel decisions
by AD can be appealed. The appeals process is not intended to
merely inspect whether formal right to perform an action existed;
such appeals would be very easily decided. In most cases, an
appeal involves an action which is within the jurisdiction of the
chair or AD in question but where we have to ask whether the
decision was right. For instance, did the AD interpret Last
Call discussion, WG situation, etc. correctly? Was the decision
to approve the document or replace chairs reasonable or should
these decisions be corrected in some way? This is the way
I believe we dealt with this appeal too.

Jari

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:13:18 +0200

> I'd like to know if this is a topic of concern to people.

I had not realized that IESG statements bound future IESGs.  I find that 
in itself disturbing.

Eliot