IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105321200F1 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZcMhNlgfbip8 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2D6120052 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46YXgT4jlZz1P8xd; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1568841013; bh=lzYvb8gtNwSdWXfg+D9XNu5xIFWbUBTHZ0iGXnPXnKw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=qYfcEGTyCqZyXIYw7XN7L5ClBbnVcclxX7hgo7lrZKqkjMh/rrHu9e0sgkw5XqhuC LLSPor6xkKnMopd9Ibs57IuiczKuKRxDTt4Gtnx4iRBmjNIVWlhyDnuH0mkkWh2lpU bSUPMGvvs75jDpqB+lNVXWG28ZO3eyzUrv/GJK9o=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.20.7.244] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46YXgT0z4Qz1P8xM; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <939D2A7C64A58595AD2B9CBD@PSB> <CABcZeBNxVgJE=jv7+Zf6RjkG3r-+00zuMQ=2mtESrP4skkPgzQ@mail.gmail.com> <4A244E1EFA8D1821D2D49ABD@PSB> <CABcZeBNmT2ONMacUiVsjUuR=cHz=fAog3ojNuhrD7P0eqQbOSQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190918125334.13e73f70@elandnews.com> <e1e2687f-bdba-edca-b3e8-247ca35ba0a5@nomountain.net>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <2142e705-890e-44e0-7eb4-5524bc04227f@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:10:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e1e2687f-bdba-edca-b3e8-247ca35ba0a5@nomountain.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/GI7wIuDXpnw7X2D_8MRVngOb_KY>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:10:15 -0000

That (the possibility of using nomcom reappointment instead of recall) 
may be a choice in terms of balancing benefits and costs of solutions.

It is not an argument for claiming there is no problem, unless one is 
taking the view that the recall process is irrelevant.  While some folks 
are concerned that it is actually irrelevant, that is not part of what I 
understood as the scope for this.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/18/2019 4:29 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 9/18/19 12:11 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each other.
> 
> I'm not EKR but I believe that the argument is that one obviates
> the other - that bad actors can simply not be reappointed.  That
> may be true, modulo schedules and whatnot (the risk of leaving
> someone who's performing badly in place for longer than would be
> the case if they'd been recalled).
> 
> Melinda
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email