Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 24 May 2019, at 18:54, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

>  One of the things that has kept the recall petitions rare is that 
> that the people who initiate the petition need to have some 
> accountability for doing so (I would call this “skin in the game” 
> [0] but it does not translate well across cultures). Otherwise there 
> will be no bar to filing frivolous petitions. This brings me to the 
> elephant in the room. It is fairly trivial for someone to sign up 10 
> remote participant identities to initiate a recall petition without 
> incurring much effort, for the *sole purpose* of starting a recall 
> petition. I would like to see some suggestions as to how we can ensure 
> that this would not happen.

It is not "fairly trivial" to sign up 10 remote participants for 3 out 
of the last 5 meetings just to game the system; that takes at least a 
year's worth of planning. That requirement (which has always been in the 
document) seems plenty high to prevent completely frivolous petitions. 
And note that even if there were frivolous petitions (and I think it is 
highly unlikely), this would simply be a DOS attack on recall 
committees, not a way to remove an AD or IAB member.

Even if you think that the one year of planning is not enough to 
discourage silliness, there are other potential simple solutions (e.g., 
half of the petitioners must be non-remote registrants, etc.).

I think the concerns here are overdone.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best