Re: [Eligibility-discuss] New draft: draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comments.


On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 6:32 AM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Given your description here, I would have expected the document to
> include a clear set of definitions for what constituted legitimate
> grounds for such expulsion.
> As written, although you specify an appeal process there does not seem
> to be any well-defined grounds provided for such an appeal.
>

I hadn't thought of this. I think this generally points to a point of
confusion
in this document about the role of the  appeal to the confirming body,
namely
is that appeal supposed to check that the expulsion was good or that it
formally followed the rules?

I tried to follow the precedent of 7437, which is basically to specify
voting
rules but not allow decisions to be made on any basis (for instance, here's
the text about confirmation in 3.7.3):

   The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information and
   any means acceptable to them, including but not limited to the
   supporting information provided by the nominating committee,
   information known personally to members of the confirming bodies and
   shared within the confirming body, the results of interactions within
   the confirming bodies, and the confirming bodies' interpretation of
   what is in the best interests of the IETF community.

The text around recalls is similar, just requiring a "justification".
But perhaps that's not the right way to think about it?


If it is really about cases of serious non-performance, I would think it
> should say that. And that it should take more than 67% of the body for
> the removal.
>

I don't feel strongly about 2/3; it's just a common supermajority level. If
people
thought 3/4 was appropriate, that wouldn't be something I would fight about.

-Ekr


> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 5/16/19 9:16 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've just posted a fleshed out version of the proposal that MSJ
> > made a while back of allowing a body to recall its members. Here's
> > the rationale:
> >
> > This document proposes an alternate structure which is designed
> > to deal with just egregious cases (e.g., total member checkout,
> > major misconduct) but is also faster because it doesn't involve
> > spinning up the nomcom machinery (twice, once to recall and once
> > to replace). In this structure, the IAB/IESG would vote to
> > expel the offending member with consent from the other body.
> > The rationale here is that the body themselves is in the best
> > position to know when a member really needs to be removed.
> >
> > Thanks for reading!
> >
> > -Ekr
> >
>