Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 18:42 -0400 Patrick McManus
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Eliot,
> 
> The reason I made a comment on this topic is because the
> amount of discussion related to recall struck me as
> embarrassing.

It strikes me as embarrassing too, but for a rather different
reason.

> I am reminded of kids in a clubhouse, no doubt bearing a keep
> out sign, discussing whether the secretary or treasurer would
> take over in the wake of the simultaneous death of the
> co-presidents (who couldn't agree on who would be president in
> the first place). In short - its a process discussion obsessed
> with trappings and machinery and meta-talk. It exists only to
> serve itself. At least the kids in the clubhouse have nothing
> better to do. A BoF is just endorsement that its important,
> when it is not.

Please remember that draft-moonesamy-recall-rev was proposed as
a very small set of patches to address perceived process
unfairness to a collection of IETF participants who, as the IETF
evolves, is growing more numerous and perhaps even more
important.  I was responsible for adding a decade-old loose end
to the patch list because it would be convenient.  That was
probably a mistake.   The authors thought that these patches
were sufficiently minor and focused that they could easily be
handled by going directly to IETF Last Call or, at worst, to a
very focused and short-lived WG.  Far more significant process
changes in this particular area were handled that way.  For
better or worse, had that occurred, we wouldn't be trying to
negotiate the terms of a BOF, we would not be intertwining
discussions of those patches with discussions of the
appropriateness of recalls and alternate models, etc.: exactly
the type of process discussion you are complaining about.  But
the IESG decided it wanted to open the door to broader
discussions and iterations on problem statements, so here we
are.  The usual refrain at this point is "if you don't like it,
tell it to the Nomcom".

> WRT clear and non-controversial cases such as AWOL - there
> already is a process that has been prepared in contingency in
> the past and not needed yet. That seems fine.

Actually, I'm not sure I know what you are talking about.  I was
active in POISED and even chaired one of its successor WGs.  I
don't even remember a discussion of recall as a mechanism for
dealing with what I think you are referring to as "AWOL".   If
it had been discussed, I'd like to believe we would have done
much better because the recall procedure is far too expensive
and time-consuming to deal with a person who has left but not
formally resigned.  For that situation, we shouldn't need much
more than a formal way of confirming the disappearance and
resigning for them, i.e., a way to define and fill a vacancy
without a formal resignation from the person.  Collecting
signatures, appointing a recall committee chair, going through
the process of getting volunteers for and selecting a recall
committee, and then having that committee say "yep, he or she
has disappeared" is almost certainly a far larger waste of time
than what you are complaining about in this discussion.  So to
claim that there is a process prepared for that case and
suggesting it is fine is, umm, strange to me.

That said, it seems to me that you are doing what you are
complaining about by introducing an issue that was not on the
table and expanding the scope of the discussion well beyond the
narrow focus of  the I-D and the discussion around it.  To me,
"trappings and machinery and meta-talk" pretty well cover that
situation.  YMMD, but, if so, I'd like to understand how and why.

> WRT less obvious cases - referring them to a committee is not
> how one effectively resolves complicated questions. In the
> case of a multi stakeholder organization like ours those
> questions will inevitably be tinged with market and political
> forces - its the nature of the beast. Keeping terms short
> creates an accountability loop while also allowing the office
> holder space to fulfill their duties day to day. A totally
> reasonable situation - half the leadership stands for
> appointment every year already.

And, again, those of us who want to keep the discussion narrowly
focused don't consider the less obvious cases or complicated
questions to be in scope.  From that point of view, the above is
either a distraction or a no-op.  On the other hand, I agree
with Eliot: your assumption that there is no leadership
performance or non-performance problem so severe that it cannot
wait a year or two without causing harm is inconsistent with my
experience as well.  It is also incorrect unless we have
concluded that things have changed and that old notions of
"Internet time" as moving very quickly are no longer applicable.

best,
    john