Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 10/27/2019 11:47 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> (and yes, Mike's suggestion of splitting the Nomcom function
> itself into two parts is, to me, fascinating and deserving of
> more consideration but it seems to me to be completely
> orthogonal to the proposal on the table.)

Not completely.   My observation was that splitting the Nomcom (and 
hence the related recall committee process - should have been more clear 
- I was dealing with lack of sleep) into two and making the membership 
of the IESG selecting/recalling committee(s) open to remote attendees 
might make some sense.  My thought here is that the remote-only 
attendees tend to have some idea of the standards related processes and 
giving them some say in the selection (or recall) of the people 
implementing those processes makes sense.

The IAB and LLC tend to be more about the support structure for the 
standards process and other things (e.g. IRTF, in-person meeting 
structure, long term planning, external relationships, etc) and leaving 
that to a Nomcom/Recall committee selected using the current criteria of 
in-person attendance, at least for the interim, also appears to make sense.

Creating a second Nomcom to off-load some of the work seems to make even 
more sense given the number of positions that the current Nomcom needs 
to fill each cycle - and it keeps ticking upwards.

WRT to the question of bogus  - ISTM you have to solve the problem of 
bogus people not only for the recall process, but for the selection of 
the Nomcom  at some point if you want to open either to remote 
participation.  It may be time to enumerate the possibilities people 
have discussed so far and just pick one.

I think I agree with Andy that the threat to the recall process is 
pretty minimal under most of the proposals.  There may be a higher 
threat if we want to open the appointment side.

Later, Mike