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

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

I probably can't speak to the cases you describe.

I did once start to put together a recall petition for an AD (so long ago that we need not dwell on the details). I found that collecting cosignatories was slow, but for good reasons. People generally said "Yes, bad stuff is happening, but recall is pretty serious. Can we think about other ways of handling this?". And, indeed, once the seriousness got discussed a bit, the AD concerned modified their behaviour (coincidence is not causation).

The process did not seem unwieldy to me, but making it more wieldy (for example by reducing the number of signatures needed) does not seem to be a bad idea to me. In fact, it is part of SM's draft, IIRC. 

However, adding a new process that allows removal of a community appointment by other than the community looks like a way of just increasing the chances of appeals and additional recalls. I think it is a discussion we could have, but I also think it is independent of SM's proposals.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear (elear) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 26 May 2019 13:01
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

Well.  Clearly I was wrong about the controversy part :-).  I would beg to differ on the current process having served us well. To say that it has would mean that all people who should have been removed were, and that no others were. I am aware of at least three cases where at least the former part of the predicate is false. In all three cases this was due not to a difference of opinion or technical incompetence or irascibility, but simply being derelict.  That in turn informs me that we have made the current process unwieldy for the most uncontroversial of situations.

Eliot

> On May 26, 2019, at 12:24, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Well, if a WG is needed/desirable, you have captured the process. Although (of course?) if EKR wants his draft to continue, he would need to request a BoF.
> 
> Personally speaking, I am considerably opposed to EKR's proposal. The members of the I* are appointed by NomCom on behalf of the community and their removal should also be by the community. I am not comforted by the suggestion that a NomCom appointee could always be reappointed even after removal by the fellow members of the I*. 
> 
> I understand that impeachment is a popular topic in some quarters at the moment, but I believe that recall has served us well for many years and we don't need to replace it, just modify its scope to enable the recent changes in participation.
> 
> Again speaking personally, I don't think a working group is necessary to work the issue in SM's draft, and I would like to see some progress made on that work relatively soon. I understand that a face-to-face discussion may provide some focus, but I also think that we could make some progress (as we just did with the thread about whether registered remote participation is an easy attack vector).
> 
> Best,
> Adrian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eligibility-discuss <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear (elear)
> Sent: 26 May 2019 10:59
> To: S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
> 
> I like the idea of a BoF on this topic. Were we to task the traditional questions to form a WG, I’m pretty confident that they would all (eventually) be answered in the affirmative.
> 
> That doesn’t mean, SM, however, that I would agree that your draft is the correct starting point.  EKR’s draft covers many of my concerns, and from an incremental standpoint that is where I would prefer to start. Not that remote participation isn’t an important issue, but rather we have clear examples of where his draft could have helped, it is well scoped, and probably not THAT controversial. 
> 
> Eliot
> 
>> On May 26, 2019, at 00:36, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Rich,
>> At 03:05 PM 25-05-2019, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>      The current description of the process for handling recalls of
>>>      NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 and is being updated in
>>>      draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis.  ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So why is your draft not appropriate to be discussed as part of the 7437bis document?
>> 
>> If I am not mistaken, the Responsible Area Director for IASA2 determined that drafts which go beyond cosmetic updates are out of scope for that working group.
>> 
>>> If your draft becomes an RFC at some point, do you expect it to say "updates 7437bis" ?
>> 
>> Please see the first page of the draft.  It has an "Updates: 7437 (if approved)".  It is expected to update 7437bis if there is approval for that.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
>> 
>> -- 
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
> -- 
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
> 
> -- 
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss