Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Toerless, SM, and others who commented on the importance of recognising people who made contributions: I fully agree, of course. Giving credit for contributions, be it about being the developer of a major protocol, having your name on the author list, or being mentioned in the acknowledgments is one of the currencies that help draw people into doing work at the IETF. Along with people's need to get an internetworking problem solved, of course. And the needs for their software to interwork with others. And the needs of their users being met… Anyway, back to acknowledgments. We should, of course, give credit for contributions. I hope we all think about this long and hard when we write our documents, and do the right thing. Erring on the side of being inclusive is probably a better strategy for most cases. The issue in this case though was where to draw the line. As an example, for my documents, I've mostly used a strategy where I acknowledge the significant contributions. I've occasionally used another approach, essentially listing everyone who had done any work relating to the document, no matter how small. I think either model is defensible, but there will always be a question of what contributions meet the criteria for being included. Should I acknowledge someone if they post a review that said everything is OK? A comment on the mailing list that they support this document? A suggestion that did not result in a change in the document? A minor editorial fix? A question? An argument? We do not have a definition of what kinds of things should result in your name being listed in the acknowledgments. And I don't think we should formalise that either. It is a better model to have the authors make common sense decisions about these matters. And, as with any topic, if there is a mistake there are several opportunities to rectify the situation if after analysis it seems that a mistake was made. But only if it were a clear mistake - I think it would be a bad model if the IESG or someone else were to micromanage this. The documents are WG's documents and author's documents. Jari
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 07/02/2013 07:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing one... i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine. randy I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty hilarious stuff in there. I feel this contributor's frustration though (even though the IESG is right). I'd tend to agree with you Randy... save it for something worth advocating for.
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many succeed? My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html: Accepted: 6 Denied: 25 Withdrawn: 1 One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were denied. One appellant appealed 4 times, all denied. One appellant appealed 3 times, all denied. At least two of the accepted appeals resulted in a different remedy than requested by the appellant (i.e., adding an IESG Note to a document instead of making other changes or rejecting the document). At least two of the denied appeals were on strictly procedural grounds; one came over two months after the action, one was appealing an IAB decision that was out of jurisdiction for the IESG to decide. Interpret the above as you see fit. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Jari, *: Disclaimer: see signature (i do not know the details of this specific case). To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has for providing recognition to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as recognition for that contribution is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it will negatively impact the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see. Unless a contributor has a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts, its most likely not worth their time to fight / improve documents without better means of recognition than how its defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing recognition for their contribution to their employer/sponsor. As much as i hate overboarding processes, an explicit review tool tracking feedback and approval/disapproval of documents may be able to help here. Especially given how there is already tooling to show some form of IETF score based on explicit authorship. You know who's tool i am talking about ;-) Not claiming i am persuaded that the problem is significant enough to invest into an explicit review tool, just saying its more than just difference of opinions or rough consensus as you seem to claim (if i undestood you correctly). Cheers Toerless On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 07:19:20AM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine. Errors do happen, for everyone and for all organisations. We do not treat appeals as sour grapes at the IESG, IAB or other places that receive them. We consider them an opportunity to review whether something was missed. At the same time, we do not intend to give special treatment to an argument just because it is labeled as an appeal. Sometimes legitimate differences of opinion are just that, and consensus was rough. Jari -- --- Toerless Eckert, eck...@cisco.com It's much easier to have an opinion if you do not understand the problem.
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many succeed? My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html: Accepted: 6 Denied: 25 Withdrawn: 1 One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were denied. One appellant appealed 4 times, all denied. One appellant appealed 3 times, all denied. At least two of the accepted appeals resulted in a different remedy than requested by the appellant (i.e., adding an IESG Note to a document instead of making other changes or rejecting the document). At least two of the denied appeals were on strictly procedural grounds; one came over two months after the action, one was appealing an IAB decision that was out of jurisdiction for the IESG to decide. Interpret the above as you see fit. Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of this club? Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference. W pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 -- It is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- E.W Dijkstra, 1930-2002
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of this club? I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they will be identified as kooks hurts the process model by suppressing what might be legitimate concerns. In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_ list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a collection of categories. The web page lists only those that were escalated to full IESG review. That is important for two reasons: * The majority of appeals, and a larger majority of those that are consistent with community consensus or technical reasonableness, are resolved well before the issues involved come to the formal attention of the full IESG. If an issue is appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not show up in the list on the web page or statistics derived from it. * A few minutes of thought will probably suffice to show you that appeals that have significant merit are far more likely to be resolved at stages prior to full IESG review. By contrast, a hypothetical appeal that was wholly without merit, or even filed with the intent of annoying the IESG, is almost certain to reach the IESG and end up on the list, badly distorting the actual situation. best, john p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and not all appeals. Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference.
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 7/3/2013 9:32 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: Interpret the above as you see fit. As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a bit more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to find some criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants. In this case, I think that a reasonable distinction could be made between real participants in the community, versus, u... others. A plausible-if-simplistic criterion could be noting whether the appellant had authored at least one RFC. As with most heuristics, it doesn't provide a guarantee. Still, it looks like a useful filter. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes: Strong agreement. I'm not currently a member of that club, although if I stick around the IETF long enough it's bound to happen. I've certainly received and reviewed appeals that I thought were a valid contribution to the process. Don't appeal if there is a better way to address your concerns, but if an appeal is the right approach, then file one.
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a bit more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to find some criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants. Yup. E.g., it's worth reading the IESG response to John Klensin's appeal, and also the IESG response to Dean's most recent appeal. I wasn't on the IESG for either of these, so I have no attachment to the text as written, but in both cases it seems very clear to me that the right thing was done, and that the responses were well reasoned and thorough.
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of this club? Other than a*very* small minority of well known and well respected folk thehttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference. I think this is a bit overstated. There are 14 unique names of appellants (2 of which are groups of appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants account for 19 appeals, all denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of the club with those 3 who make up 60% of the appealing, but if you simply remove those, you get: 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in between appeals) 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided 6 appeals accepted 6 appeals denied. So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Of the rest, over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and long-time participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were denied and half were accepted. So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues to the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is, there's a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees the rest of us in the IETF have missed. I'd be part of that club. I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they will be identified as kooks hurts the process model by suppressing what might be legitimate concerns. Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away from those who are using it for its designed purpose. In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_ list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a collection of categories. The web page lists only those that were escalated to full IESG review. Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as appeals. The rest of the discussions are simply part of dispute or disagreement resolution. But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution takes place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal appeal. p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and not all appeals. Good idea. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
+1 And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs have turned down and then been proven right years later. If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a mutual appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual appreciation society. On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote: ** On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumariwar...@kumari.net war...@kumari.net wrote: Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of this club? Other than a **very** small minority of well known and well respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference. I think this is a bit overstated. There are 14 unique names of appellants (2 of which are groups of appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants account for 19 appeals, all denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of the club with those 3 who make up 60% of the appealing, but if you simply remove those, you get: 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in between appeals) 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided 6 appeals accepted 6 appeals denied. So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Of the rest, over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and long-time participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were denied and half were accepted. So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues to the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is, there's a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees the rest of us in the IETF have missed. I'd be part of that club. I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they will be identified as kooks hurts the process model by suppressing what might be legitimate concerns. Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away from those who are using it for its designed purpose. In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_ list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a collection of categories. The web page lists only those that were escalated to full IESG review. Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as appeals. The rest of the discussions are simply part of dispute or disagreement resolution. But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution takes place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal appeal. p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and not all appeals. Good idea. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: +1 And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs have turned down and then been proven right years later. If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a mutual appreciation society that will get through the process as quickly as possible. They end up with a scheme that meets only the needs of the mutual appreciation society. On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of this club? Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page is basically a handy kook reference. I think this is a bit overstated. Yes. It was a flippant response and there should probably have been a smiley somewhere in it... There are 14 unique names of appellants (2 of which are groups of appellants). As I stated, 3 of those appellants account for 19 appeals, all denied. Perhaps you don't want to be part of the club with those 3 who make up 60% of the appealing, Yup, that is the club I was meaning. but if you simply remove those, you get: 13 appeals for 11 appellants (2 of them appealed twice, with years in between appeals) 1 appeal withdrawn before the IESG decided 6 appeals accepted 6 appeals denied. So the small minority are actually the repeat appealers. Yeah, you are right. I was simply looking at the list of repeats. Of the rest, over half I would instantly recognize as well-known and long-time participants, and (without naming names) half of *those* folks were denied and half were accepted. So appeals that get to the level of the IESG from the group of 11 are accepted half of the time. That means that these folks are bringing issues to the IESG that, after having gone through the WG, the chairs, and the cognizant AD, half the time are still accepted by the IESG. That is, there's a 50/50 shot they've found a serious problem that the IESG agrees the rest of us in the IETF have missed. I'd be part of that club. Yup, fair 'nuff -- as would I. I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they will be identified as kooks hurts the process model by suppressing what might be legitimate concerns. Agreed. In any dispute process, there will be some folks who are outliers that make up an awful lot of the total load. But that shouldn't take away from those who are using it for its designed purpose. Agreed. The dispute / appeals process is important, and needed -- it has served, and I'm sure will continue to serve, a useful purpose. But, before filing an appeal I think one should take a step back, wait a day or three to calm down and ask oneself: A: is this really worthy of an appeal? B: how / why did we end up here? C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11? D: have I tried to resolve this without resorting to appeals? really? E: do I actually understand how this IETF thingie works? F: was there any sort of process violation or am I simply annoyed that no-one likes / listens to me? G: have I filed more appeals than actual contributions? H: does my appeal text Contain Randomly capitalized Text or excessive exclamation marks? Have I made up words? I: am I grandstanding? J: am I simply on the rough side of consensus? K: is this really worthy of an appeal? W In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_ list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a collection of categories. The web page lists only those that were escalated to full IESG review. Interestingly, 2026 6.5 only refers to things that get to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as appeals. The rest of the discussions are simply part of dispute or disagreement resolution. But John's central point still stands: Most of the dispute resolution takes place before it ever gets to the IESG, IAB, or ISOC BoT as a formal appeal. p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and not all appeals. Good
RE: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11? I think there's a new club of one. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 07/03/2013 05:20 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11? I think there's a new club of one. Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay more attention to this thread ...
Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Yeah, but we don't actually count the clubs, so it's okay.
Re: [IETF] [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay more attention to this thread ... If you don't read ietf, you don't get to participate in the consensus... ;)
RE: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many succeed? If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing one... (On the other hand, that might simply be because 97% of the appeals are written by loons. Statistics can't tell us everything.) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG [i...@ietf.org] Sent: 02 July 2013 23:24 To: abdussalambar...@gmail.com Cc: ietf-annou...@ietf.org Subject: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19, 2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt This is a dispute about a matter in a working group. The same matter has previously been raised with the working group chairs and responsible Area Director, as specified in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1. Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR. After reviewing the appeal, including the associated list discussion and draft revisions, the IESG concludes that the authors made a reasonable editorial choice that was well within their discretion and that none of the messages at issue fall under the required acknowledgment rules of RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 and RFC 5378 Sections 5.6a and 1c. The IESG finds that the chairs and responsible AD handled complaints about the matter appropriately.
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Lloyd, On Jul 2, 2013, at 4:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many succeed? Appeals are listed at: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html Bob If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing one... (On the other hand, that might simply be because 97% of the appeals are written by loons. Statistics can't tell us everything.) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing one... i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine. randy
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here. On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many succeed? If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother writing one... (On the other hand, that might simply be because 97% of the appeals are written by loons. Statistics can't tell us everything.) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG [i...@ietf.org] Sent: 02 July 2013 23:24 To: abdussalambar...@gmail.com Cc: ietf-annou...@ietf.org Subject: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19, 2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt This is a dispute about a matter in a working group. The same matter has previously been raised with the working group chairs and responsible Area Director, as specified in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1. Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR. After reviewing the appeal, including the associated list discussion and draft revisions, the IESG concludes that the authors made a reasonable editorial choice that was well within their discretion and that none of the messages at issue fall under the required acknowledgment rules of RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 and RFC 5378 Sections 5.6a and 1c. The IESG finds that the chairs and responsible AD handled complaints about the matter appropriately.
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 03/07/2013 14:23, Russ Housley wrote: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here. ...since late 2002, that is. There were appeals earlier in history. The first one I recall reached the IAB in 1995, and had presumably already been rejected by the IESG. However, statistics since 2002 are probably enough. I'd say that rejected appeals quite often lead to clarification of procedures for the future; therefore they have value, even if it isn't immediately obvious. Brian
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
On 7/2/2013 8:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 03/07/2013 14:23, Russ Housley wrote: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here. ...since late 2002, that is. There were appeals earlier in history. The first one I recall reached the IAB in 1995, and had presumably already been rejected by the IESG. However, statistics since 2002 are probably enough. I believe I submitted the first appeal. It was to break a logjam with the the IETF's failure to sign an agreement with Sun, to get NFS brought into the IETF. I had been the cognizant AD when they approached the IETF, but the ball got dropped after that. So it wasn't so much 'rejected' by the IESG as it was cast in terms of IESG failure, although really no one was quite sure who needed to sign the contract with Sun and everyone was afraid of doing it. My reading of the appeal was that it succeeded, in that the agreement with Sun was signed shortly after that and the IETF took over the NFS specification. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine. Errors do happen, for everyone and for all organisations. We do not treat appeals as sour grapes at the IESG, IAB or other places that receive them. We consider them an opportunity to review whether something was missed. At the same time, we do not intend to give special treatment to an argument just because it is labeled as an appeal. Sometimes legitimate differences of opinion are just that, and consensus was rough. Jari
Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19, 2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt This is a dispute about a matter in a working group. The same matter has previously been raised with the working group chairs and responsible Area Director, as specified in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1. Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR. After reviewing the appeal, including the associated list discussion and draft revisions, the IESG concludes that the authors made a reasonable editorial choice that was well within their discretion and that none of the messages at issue fall under the required acknowledgment rules of RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 and RFC 5378 Sections 5.6a and 1c. The IESG finds that the chairs and responsible AD handled complaints about the matter appropriately.
