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

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

--On Saturday, 25 May, 2019 17:33 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> 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.

Agreed.  And, unless one is prepared to argue that remote
participants are somehow more inclined to frivolous petitions
than those who attend regularly (no matter whether they actually
participate actively or not), this is a case in which the huge
number of frivolous recall efforts we have had in the past,
especially those that have gone to the point of getting a recall
committee formed (and even back when the number of people it
took to initiate such an action was only one and with no
qualification restrictions) strongly suggests that this is not a
real fear.

> 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'd oppose that type of restriction unless there is at least a
shred of evidence that remote participants are, as a group, more
silliness-prone than those who show up.  So far, there isn't and
the same "remote participants should not be treated as
second-class unless there is a clear reason to do so"
considerations should apply that motivated
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev in the first place.

   john