IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3FE120052 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id maL14nNW3bTW for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8D89120046 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id m7so1436479lji.2 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N45shW2O07UidJ5sNGEAxbYJOucrhxcuiW29zEe2bbA=; b=OBqZWIiqsU0qHsc8uFlYU4+D2o8WzjQcrnZxLnIkRS/1g8y4hQLIKaQCpcgVLcO8bT HUxhLRRKk0oEb9alJEIZzXvKiH7/RILbuw7dENHeS0MT8KVViX1SdzojM/oSpc8r1qZJ GaEtZChotXFHSCfCjVRG1XAvyTVlDlATTE6E4pG8sDZrcxdoQcDAmyWRF0vU2AULsdA7 Fp6O7UOJkL9sqrdfKEUtVYfviVkpQC1FSYJytY8b/xl5vivV7UmX0j/hrSMG3iXktndv IkkDZTNLcVcUwjdLkYQYeGI3lBuA8W7qvVi/RbT6Vd0CxN5W/dXIy+znxXgCEilENgHE Px5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N45shW2O07UidJ5sNGEAxbYJOucrhxcuiW29zEe2bbA=; b=CPU6+YS+PTLrG0FP7iV762YXmCN+H92dKg43zZ23Zurc0PxFZ5Pa1izX9OsY2DAwFy QzU7S8HTOcGchZzat5kSdIcGWYBWBhNItVPoW+QD12B5++e3qRyXI/GU+hYwJzy0bTAq s4KJNR7SG3zSnadVPkXLfZDQgpKSMfBdMLR1NGLucA8BXSgQLa5An12361L0u5XWc0+S SI0GtnV1ldniSCAFmgFcQZ4wm1kwGE7dSQsmhkFvhVLDt1NH1NwHGOy1AluaYs95AmKZ K4BgBl3nrpdUyXuyQEPfh7xIF+Y6cSC21A2yLtv7YztltfgXl/FpUiayjxF5cLb9OA4X i6Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVFi+dZYj+hmRaVqhLxf3vQ1SHNzAUmxc1fDY4rXK+zmMuwtCLl d3FvKHGZ+9+oXcaNXZbOqza2vkyhHCSyH5S6YwrGXyIpcwKPiQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFoMK8tUh47yz6xr1qQ2AaqGeulR4vQ/GIOJKEQTJHXuGjmuUcpAc1INYQq/kTpBbhaEcfUEYOUuiMT0+jFQI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:89ce:: with SMTP id c14mr3443393ljk.145.1568842202102; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <939D2A7C64A58595AD2B9CBD@PSB> <CABcZeBNxVgJE=jv7+Zf6RjkG3r-+00zuMQ=2mtESrP4skkPgzQ@mail.gmail.com> <4A244E1EFA8D1821D2D49ABD@PSB> <CABcZeBNmT2ONMacUiVsjUuR=cHz=fAog3ojNuhrD7P0eqQbOSQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190918125334.13e73f70@elandnews.com> <e1e2687f-bdba-edca-b3e8-247ca35ba0a5@nomountain.net> <04d201d56e67$7813d470$683b7d50$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <04d201d56e67$7813d470$683b7d50$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:29:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOLkmYBrSNTVdRDZhtXdaGmC9haJi2x9LtbOWpRdbXnGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a550a0592da8a22"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/2AcHsjYr0lU6ULlI1qh2v9wLxJQ>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:30:06 -0000

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:24 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> But, I confess, I read Ekr's comment as though he was saying that the
> existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom exists.


No, I was responding to the narrow claim that John made that recalls were
the "community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone". I now
see his clarification and I think we are in agreement about the facts.



> SM's question was that, given that a recall process exists, should remote
> attendees be barred from participating in a request for a recall committee
> to be formed?
>

I understand that, but when considering new work we don't generally feel
ourselves bound by the particular question that the proponents want to
raise.

-Ekr


> Best,
> Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eligibility-discuss <eligibility-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> On
> Behalf Of Melinda Shore
> Sent: 18 September 2019 21:29
> To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a
> virtual meeting
>
> On 9/18/19 12:11 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each other.
>
> I'm not EKR but I believe that the argument is that one obviates
> the other - that bad actors can simply not be reappointed.  That
> may be true, modulo schedules and whatnot (the risk of leaving
> someone who's performing badly in place for longer than would be
> the case if they'd been recalled).
>
> Melinda
>
> --
> Melinda Shore
> melinda.shore@nomountain.net
>
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email