Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry, Ekr, all,

 

Ekr wrote

 

> I assume we'll start by discussing whether these claimed

> problems in fact need to be addressed?

 

I’m a little concerned by the choice of language here.

 

Barry presented three problems for discussion:

 

>> - Remote participants are not eligible to seek redress through the

>>   recall process.

>> 

>> - Members of bodies appointed by the NomCom are also not eligible,

>>   and this restricts the timely initiation of a recall petition.

>> 

>> - The required number of signatories sets a very high barrier to

>>    initiate a recall petition.

 

The first one and a half of these are statements of fact. Using the phrase “claimed problems” seems to cast doubt on the facts, but they are not open for debate.

 

The remaining one and a half are statements of opinion, and are, of course, open for debate.

 

I wonder whether the discussion of “need to be addressed” might be tempered with a discussion of “possible harm” caused by addressing them. For example, could allowing remote participants to participate to some extent in a recall petition cause cost or damage to the IETF. We can then offset our concern for that harm with our concern to make sure that the IETF appears to be an open and welcoming place for remote participants.

 

Similarly, we might look at what harm it might cause if members of the IESG were able to sign a recall petition. And we could then consider that harm in the light of the opposing view that there are times when the IESG will be particularly well informed about the need to recall one of their peers.

 

- - - - -

 

Barry, I’ll try to join the meeting. I’m located at UTC+1 (for the next month).

 

Best,

Adrian