Subject: [Rfced-future] Consensus check: Issue 16: Appeals (RSWG)

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:37:54 +0200

The following text was proposed to address appeals of the RSWG:

> Appeals of RSWG decisions can be made to the RSAB if there are 
> concerns about the process followed by the RSWG. Appeals should be 
> made within 30 days of any action. The RSAB then decides if the 
> process has been followed.

Please raise concerns by 6 July if you have any.

Eliot

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:10:02 +0100

I completely agree with the sentiment, but I think the wording may have issues.

What the proposal does is say what can be done "if there are concerns about the process followed by the RSWG." It does not say (but I think it is meant to imply) that the content of the decisions cannot be appealed.

The "should" is also slightly ambiguous.
And "any action" presumably means the action being appealed.

I would...

Decisions of the RSWG can only be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. Such an appeal must be made to the RSAB within 30 days of the action being appealed. The RSAB will then decide whether the process was followed correctly.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 22 June 2021 15:38
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Rfced-future] Consensus check: Issue 16: Appeals (RSWG)

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:16:37 +1200

I think this is right, but let's be clear: it says that the RSWG is infallible, as long as it is correctly seated when it speaks ex cathedra.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra]

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:20:41 -0400

No, at the very least the RSAB is allowed to say "no, this is wrong" 
separately from any formal appeal.   We are not creating any other way 
to "appeal" the content of decisions.  But we did include in other parts 
of the document that the RSAB is supposed to pay attention to feedback 
it receives during the final call for comment.

WHile I have concerns withthis whole process, I do not have bettter 
answers.  And we should avoid overstating the limitiations of teh 
construct we are building.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:47:11 +1200

> it receives during the final call for comment.

Right, but all it can do after that is remit the document back to
the RSWG.

I think that's OK. 

     Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:33:01 +0200

Hi Adrian,

> Decisions of the RSWG can only be appealed on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. Such an appeal must be made to the RSAB within 30 days of the action being appealed. The RSAB will th…

One of the cases we were trying to cover was inaction of the chairs, 
such as their refusal either to call a question or declare [lack of] 
consensus.  Thus the wording as you saw it.  This leads to an 
interesting question: when does the 30 day clock start? Also,  I think 
the intent was to provide direction to the chairs in the case of an 
appeal being upheld.

With all of this in mind, I propose a bit of a merge:

> Decisions of the RSWG can only be appealed on grounds of failure to 
> follow the correct process. Appeals should be made within 30 days of 
> any action, or in the case of failure to act, of notice having been 
> given to the RSWG. The RSAB will then decide if the process was 
> followed and will direct RSWG chairs as to what procedural actions are 
> required.

Does this make sense?

Eliot

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:31:17 +0100

Yeah, I can live with that.

Failure to act is always a tricksy one. I think you have it covered.

A

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 28 June 2021 08:33
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check: Issue 16: Appeals (RSWG)

Hi Adrian,

Does this make sense?

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:47:26 +1200

> Yeah, I can live with that.

Ditto.

> Failure to act is always a tricksy one. I think you have it covered.

Yes. Let us not forget that the first ever formal appeal in the IETF
was an appeal against IESG inaction.

   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 07:41:24 +0200

Ok.  Then the text as it stands is as follows:

Any concerns?  Please respond by the 6th.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 07:57:10 +0200

This text would cover not only issue 16, but also issue 70.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:23:32 +1200

wfm

   Brian