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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Stick with SM's original proposal.
    >>
    >> Add the requirement that there must be X people on the petition who
    >> meets the current rules (attended 3/5 physical meetings).
    >>
    >> Would that allay your concern?
    >>

    > I can't speak for Eliot, but what you're saying would not allay my
    > concerns.  Note the "if and only if" in my earlier mail -- if people have
    > no skin in the game, they should get no say, not even as filler on a
    > form.

But, they do have skin the game, having registered remotely for 3/5 of the
last few meetings.  That requires at least 12 months of preperation.

I guess someone could keep 10 (or 20) sock puppet accounts around all the
time and sell this service on the dark-net, but...

    > Again, we need some guiding principle / problem statement here, not just
    > negotiating details.

Well, I mostly agree.

But, the result of the signatures goes to the ISOC President to strike a
recall committee.  The ISOC President gets to exercise judgement, and then
we get to randomly select 10 people to serve on the committee, and this
document doesn't admit remote attendees to the committee.

{I've been through multiple political parties that have had to deal with
"outsiders" crashing their leadership campaigns.   Hell... I've been involved
(unsuccessfully) in crashing the leadership campaigns of parties that were
verring toward racist/fashists.  I can read the fine print of consitutions
quite well.  So let me assure you that I understand your concern}

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-