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

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> How about phrasing the problem as “You need too many people to sign a
> recall petition, and that makes it too hard to achieve a recall”?
>

Without taking a position on the merits, that seems more like a problem
statement. An even crisper statement, perhaps, would be "It's too hard to
achieve a recall"

We can agree or disagree about whether this is a problem and whether we
> want to work on it. That’s why we have BoFs and mailing lists.
>

Yes.

We can debate the correct solution for each problem, but (usually, when we
> have a BoF) the discussion of the solutions is sequenced after the
> discussion of the problems and agreement that we want to work on the
> problems.
>

Agreed. That's what I'm hoping for here.

-Ekr

Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
> *Sent:* 11 June 2019 13:32
> *To:* Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; Alexey Melnikov <
> aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>;
> eligibility-discuss@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>;
> John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for
> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> 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.
>
>
>
> That's helpful, but I think it also suggests that the problem statement
> that SM has written is not really right: for instance, we could solve the
> problem of people being targets of retribution by having the signers be
> secret [0].. And we could address the pool issue by letting them serve on
> the committee.
>
>
>
> OTOH, it seems to me that the purpose of these requirements is to have a
> certain level of accountability for the people requesting the recall and to
> have a certain minimum level of support. So, is it clear that we actually
> want to relax those objectives?
>
>
>
> in any case, I think this exchange suggests that the first thing that's
> needed is a problem statement that's decoupled from the solutions being
> proposed.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> [0] I'm aware that there are challenges here in verifying eligibility. I
> believe there are solutions here, though they are too small to be contained
> in this message.
>
>
>
> Eliot
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:22 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> That's nice. I like the clarity.
>
> I also like that the worms are kept firmly in their cans. It is without
> doubt that a hundred other issues concerning the recall process could be
> aired, and I am certain that many people have different hot issues. But I
> firmly believe that addressing a few at a time is the best (only!) way to
> make progress.
>
> If it turns out that there is support for resolving any of these three
> issues, they can be quickly picked off and we can move on to other issues
> if
> there is interest. If there is no support for addressing these three
> concerns, then they can be put to one side and work can start on other
> issues if there is interest.
>
> For my part, I think that all three issues should be addressed, and I think
> that the approaches suggested in SM's draft are a good starting point for
> discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eligibility-discuss <eligibility-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf
> Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: 11 June 2019 11:45
> To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>;
> eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>;
> Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for
> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>
> Hi Suresh,
>
> Please see a revised version of the BOF proposal to address your comments:
>
> Problem statement
>
>       The current description of the process for initiating petitions
> for recalls
>       for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 and is
> being updated in
>       draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis.  The scope of this work addresses only
> three
>       specific issues with the petition process; other parts of the
> recall model
>       and other ways of removing Nomcom-appointees are explicitly out of
> scope.
>
>       The three issues are:
>
>       - Ineligibility of remote participants to seek redress through the
>         recall process;
>
>       - Reducing the number of signatories for a recall petition;
>
>       - Ineligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom
>         Appointees to sign a recall petition.
>
> The purpose of the BOF is to examine the above-mentioned issues and
> determine,
> for each, whether it is sufficient interest and importance.
> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
> is a possible starting point for the effort.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>
>
>
>