Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion at gendispatch?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > This is fine with me with, as is my wont, a few qualifications
    > and concerns:

I think that you dip into the weeds, and it will attract rats/ratholes.

    > (1)  Whether it should be possible to initiate a recall from a
    > petition all of whose signatories are remote or if we need to
    > require some signatures from people who are nomcom-qualified or
    > at least attend some meetings in person?

Let me rephrase.
  1) Are exclusively remotely-enfranchised people in a different category than
     onsite-enfranchised people?

    > (2) Whether people with some special historical status wrt the
    > IETF such as having been Nomcom-qualified at some point, having
    > RFCs published in the IETF Stream, having been a WG Chair or
    > member of the IAB or IESG, having attended some number of
    > meetings, etc., should have special status wrt signing recall
    > petitions?  And, if so, what good does it do them or the
    > community?

  2) whether previously onsite-enfranchised people should have some lower bar
     for becoming remotely-enfranchised?

     NEVER mind the detail of how WG chair, RFC, etc. contributes to
     being remotely-enfranchised.
     The question is whether there are two categories or three.

    > (3) Whether members of an I* body should be treated in some
    > special way wrt recalls.  It has been pointed out that, if the
    > number of required signatures  is reduced to 10, the IESG
    > doesn't need special provisions to initiate a recall all by
    > itself.  But that turns the question around, to, e.g., whether
    > the members of an I* body (or more than one of them) should be
    > allowed to initiate a recall on their own or whether some
    > external signatures should be required.

  3) are I* people enfranchised.

    > (4) Whether registration should be sufficient to count as remote
    > participation or whether, e.g., someone should be required to
    > sign into some WG sessions in Meetecho as a participant?  If the
    > answer to this question is "yes", should signing at least some
    > WG blue sheets (rather than, e.g., paying the registration fee
    > and spending the week at the beach or bar) be required for
    > nomcom-eligibility

  4) what is the definition of attendance/participation?
     (this is where WG chair,RFC, etc. could be discussed)


    > In addition, and drawing inspiration [1] from an ICANN call a
    > few of hours ago, we know from other bodies and even some IETF
    > experience that two ways to kill an idea are to either keep
    > changing the discussion venue or to deal with the report of one
    > committee by creating a new committee.  Noting that the modern
    > incarnation of this effort was an IETF list discussion and I-D
    > posted in the first quarter of the year, a demand for a BOF, an
    > discussion of virtual BoFs that distracted almost everyone from
    > the issue(s), a discussion that was moved to this list (and, in
    > the process, nearly killed off), then an interim meeting that
    > took months to organize, I think any discussion at gendispatch
    > should (MUST?) be carefully scoped and constrained so as to
    > prevent yet another diversion.

Hmm, interesting observation.
I would like to add that restricting the discussion to recall (which has only
happened once) also seems to be a way to put off discussion of
enfranchisement for selection, rather than recall.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-