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

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

--On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 14:21 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> H/mm..  These don't seem like "issues" so much as
>> restatements of the solution SM's draft proposes.
>> 
>> To take a specific one, what issue is addressed by reducing
>> the number of people required to sign the petition?
> 
> Fewer people would have to set themselves up as targets for
> retribution; the pool of people able to serve on the recall
> committee is marginally increased.

And, like the remote participants measure, if makes recall
initiation marginally more plausible, especially for remote
participants.

Thanks for mentioning the fear of retribution issue.  I've seen
it several times when people have felt unable to post negative
Last Call comments about documents in which one or more ADs are
involved as authors or by having significant skin in the game.
I had not considered it in the case of recall initiation, but it
is obviously going to be a concern.

It seems to me that, if a high level statement is needed, it
would be something like:

	"During the years since the Recall petitioning procedure
	was changed, with RFC 3777 in June 2004, to require
	Nomcom eligibility and 20 signatures it has become
	fairly clear that it is unusable in practice for any
	case that is not so completely obvious that a complex,
	time-consuming, multi-step, procedure should not be
	required.   It has also become progressively more unfair
	as the requirements exclude potential petitioners who
	are likely to be more knowledgeable than typical IETF
	f2f participants about particular types of abuses,
	whether because of the position those people hold or
	because as significant fraction of their participation
	is not f2f at IETF meetings.  It is also more burdensome
	for the latter group of participants than for those who
	are Nomcom-eligible under the normal rules, which is
	another source of unfairness.  The BoF is expected to
	address three specific aspects of those issues: the
	Nomcom eligibility requirement of physical meeting
	attendance, the number of signatures required on a
	petition, and the ineligibility of Nomcom-appointed
	members of leadership bodies to initiate petitions."

I remain concerned about broad statements opening up discussions
of the entire recall model (more about that in a note I have
written but hope I don't have to send), but perhaps something
like the above would respond to the need that others seem to be
feeling without significantly opening that door.

 best,
   john