Subject: Re: [Iasa20] I-D Action: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-00.txt

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:08:35 +0000

Ok – here’s a shot at that – maybe this is closer? I found that the preceding paragraph had some of what we needed, so I tweaked that as well. These are now best considered together:

If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IETF
LLC Board's response to their review request, then they may
escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action. Any
such appeal SHALL first go to the IAB, using the appeals
procedures outlined in {{RFC2026}}. Following the conclusion
of that appeal, if they are not satisfied with the IAB
response, then they MAY escalate the issue to the ISOC Board
of Trustees, as described in {{RFC2026}}, though the ISOC
Board of Trustees SHALL be limited to considering only those
review requests that are process-related.

The appropriate reviewing body SHALL consider the review
request and determine an appropriate course of action, if any.
Under no circumstances may the IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees
overturn a decision of the IETF LLC Board that involves a binding
contract or overturn a personnel-related action (such as hiring,
firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary
adjustments, etc.).

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 2:45 PM
To: Joe Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>, IASA 2 WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Iasa20] I-D Action: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-00.txt

Hi guys,

JL NEW:

   Depending on the nature of the review request, either the IAB
   or ISOC Board of Trustees shall consider it.

You have to tell the reader who to go to next.  IMHO the answer is the IAB.  Only after the IAB does ISOC get their shot, and only for limited process purposes, as discussed.  I realise that my own text was a little blurry on what happens AFTER the IAB, which is the BoT.  Jason, do you think you could wangle your text, just on this point?  Otherwise, I’m good with what you wrote.

Eliot

As described in
   RFC 2026, the ISOC Board of Trustees SHALL only consider those
   that are process-related. All others SHALL be considered by the
   IAB. The appropriate reviewing body SHALL consider the review
   request and determine an appropriate course of action, if any.
   Under no circumstances may the IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees
   overturn a decision of the IETF LLC Board that involves a binding
   contract or overturn a personnel-related action (such as hiring,
   firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary
   adjustments, etc.).

I like this version as it doesn't just remove process-related appeals from the appeals chain text but clarifies that the end-point for those appeals is the ISOC BOT. best, Joe

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:25:42 +0100

LGTM.  Thanks.

> On 7 Dec 2018, at 15:08, Livingood, Jason <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> To: Joe Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Cc: Jason Livingood <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, IASA 2 WG <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 08:26:40 +1300

But what is the meaning of "process-related" in "though the ISOC
Board of Trustees SHALL be limited to considering only those
review requests that are process-related"?

I am concerned that almost anything we do could be considered
"process" in some sense or other, so I think the phrase needs
more definition.

Regards
   Brian

On 2018-12-08 03:25, Eliot Lear wrote:
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Dec 2018 23:48:13 -0500

>review requests that are process-related"?

The ISOC board can do whatever it wants so my advice would be
to remove this meta-appeal completely.

Please see my previous note about overcomplex processes.

R's,
John