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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 11 June 2019 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 1DED0120099 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 05:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oe5lH4ucIfMx for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 05:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (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 ADAF0120047 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 05:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x5BCiNv7008072; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:44:24 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A759D22042; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:44:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C79D2203D; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:44:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (25.129.51.84.dyn.plus.net [84.51.129.25] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x5BCiMN5026642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:44:22 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Eric Rescorla' <ekr@rtfm.com>, 'Eliot Lear' <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: '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>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190601204707.0bf89070@elandnews.com> <D58B591C-9140-4273-AA11-59E2EBD101FE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190611033500.0c619e48@elandnews.com> <065101d52047$d35ea620$7a1bf260$@olddog.co.uk> <CABcZeBOX3PURx57jE1poyBt-VxdbVbcFp-E+eocPMH6fsBq6qw@mail.gmail.com> <1AE7F6A0-F278-42A5-9E55-4DA94A38CB01@cisco.com> <CABcZeBMbGOA09rRVuq2WK6SJ-pK8hAjxgMz5EaBm5-h9RGLk3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMbGOA09rRVuq2WK6SJ-pK8hAjxgMz5EaBm5-h9RGLk3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:44:21 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <066801d52053$650ea290$2f2be7b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0669_01D5205B.C6D52D70"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFR42vyAucRjBtXO+m4xnaMV3ichgHs2gIPAxJf1rwBYZyWFwJDqDEaAjXe+S0BtUW2PwFcTyHFpy1/XpA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.51.129.25
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24668.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.973-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.973-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24668.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--17.972600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CxmI61mtwh/xIbpQ8BhdbCqRJ4M9q7OvwZy9wGhpvaNFCDIidTKtYpFS DYziOe5w8vwsrbfwnUTrYt4Z4zzGgGqLs+uf/K4th6XwUno6mkn9aHlnkhmFFiS30GKAkBxWufB Ng+8/ksG2rLh8a1V1CtPKGHv3/PkFTdxlgyoTjkhkPwYFI6/mFOvWkvu/824/wj10jtt9j+9B9d 7E3eZ5kC5dI0Fz4J2fq6NOqQ9cAFcb35hYG2f1/cn9tWHiLD2GE7s3ncD36/1H7rX2ckGqtT53U iKoi7xOLvRFzGB1z1hIc7XcoyxALVEzcHURSIXRcaD+wPaBYtZCjhk4ByVfUgprCx5nrF2x3JWs hmL/k7/bPaIOzdngXluSVewUWUqGDZ4p7Io2WwzKE9oA9cXOzfiH64jt3FfEI0YrtQLsSUzCQH3 xHQZ0Sp2ywec1wywdHWyEHCDak5u4Gwz1apLtulWeeIqHthMLySf7HrQn3BptpkxrR+BG1lzTKp ++bzfFXUS+W6ogsA/eGUKKVq7jIEIw4Xa9LAtMqnhd3PneL8lzcxhUDJRJPug3wNKii1r5QPh/x C0EIZmuK2CoOfWQDl+b1eIMiHHUyTBgz6hl0dfF7d92CEJWO6ld1ZriBTRLj6Xh9k1IeO6IushU x+1X0I6hiC/HSAqLSaK6OQhDABTW77y3zZrIHboLyaVI8w2Xi84ZMJtUpThdzCApzeAWWaKkU0t 47vZIG2cmJvqAPualugrXm5IKcMNOo16VCf1yx/Stmah0FpbfVqwz+CynaalVRHRK9i1KzEVDGn c+EfKahG/i8Ja1Y7dYFVfIRaXS7zgtUFe2gc6eAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyI7KyMT1 v0KydCpCFLDTHZU4kYXbobxJbKl/MtrTwS4UL+QJhIfzUHNU5OIMDSrPFDqMouO24RAWXT9yLxI 0YMPZ2j2vJWDH8A=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/Kf48j5Dr8vZiT2FMjxN77yiVfjg>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:45:17 -0000

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”?

 

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.

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. 

 

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 <mailto:lear@cisco.com> > wrote:

 





On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:eligibility-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> > On Behalf
Of S Moonesamy
Sent: 11 June 2019 11:45
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com <mailto:suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> >;
eligibility-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org> 
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com <mailto:john-ietf@jck.com> >; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net <mailto:warren@kumari.net> >;
Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm <mailto: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 <mailto:Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss

-- 
Eligibility-discuss mailing list
Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss

-- 
Eligibility-discuss mailing list
Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss