Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion at gendispatch?

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

Pete,

This is fine with me with, as is my wont, a few qualifications
and concerns:

(1) It seems to me that the call and the (very few) email notes
that followed suggested some changes we might want to make in
the document.  I don't think we are even close to consensus on
them but, if we are going to reopen the discussion in a
different forum, I think it would be very helpful to put
discussion placeholders in the document.  With the understanding
that this is not a complete list and that others may consider
some of these to be settled,  the topics that come to mind at
the moment,  are

(1)  Whether it should be possible to initiate a recall from a
petition all of whose signatories are remote or if we need to
require some signatures from people who are nomcom-qualified or
at least attend some meetings in person?

(2) Whether people with some special historical status wrt the
IETF such as having been Nomcom-qualified at some point, having
RFCs published in the IETF Stream, having been a WG Chair or
member of the IAB or IESG, having attended some number of
meetings, etc., should have special status wrt signing recall
petitions?  And, if so, what good does it do them or the
community?

(3) Whether members of an I* body should be treated in some
special way wrt recalls.  It has been pointed out that, if the
number of required signatures  is reduced to 10, the IESG
doesn't need special provisions to initiate a recall all by
itself.  But that turns the question around, to, e.g., whether
the members of an I* body (or more than one of them) should be
allowed to initiate a recall on their own or whether some
external signatures should be required.

(4) Whether registration should be sufficient to count as remote
participation or whether, e.g., someone should be required to
sign into some WG sessions in Meetecho as a participant?  If the
answer to this question is "yes", should signing at least some
WG blue sheets (rather than, e.g., paying the registration fee
and spending the week at the beach or bar) be required for
nomcom-eligibility>

In addition, and drawing inspiration [1] from an ICANN call a
few of hours ago, we know from other bodies and even some IETF
experience that two ways to kill an idea are to either keep
changing the discussion venue or to deal with the report of one
committee by creating a new committee.  Noting that the modern
incarnation of this effort was an IETF list discussion and I-D
posted in the first quarter of the year, a demand for a BOF, an
discussion of virtual BoFs that distracted almost everyone from
the issue(s), a discussion that was moved to this list (and, in
the process, nearly killed off), then an interim meeting that
took months to organize, I think any discussion at gendispatch
should (MUST?) be carefully scoped and constrained so as to
prevent yet another diversion.

    john

[1] That might not be quite the right term, but ICANN has set
world-class examples of how to prevent conclusions or actions
but appointing one committee or study effort after another,
after another, after another, ...

--On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 12:02 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2019, at 8:29, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
>> Hi Pete,
>> At 05:22 AM 06-11-2019, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> Chatting with the ADs, we thought it might be useful to take
>>> a bit of  agenda time at the gendispatch meeting to discuss
>>> whether the  eligibility work is going to simply need AD
>>> sponsorship, or a new WG,  or no action, or... Thoughts? The
>>> gendispatch meeting is Mon, 18 Nov  at 18:10 Singapore Time
>>> (10:10 UTC, 05:10 US Eastern Time, 14:10  Mauritius Time).
>>> Are the authors available (and sufficiently awake)  at that
>>> time in order to participate?
>> 
>> Thanks for reaching out.  I'll attend the WG session
>> remotely.  Could  draft-moonesamy-recall-rev (it expires on
>> November 16) be placed on  the agenda?
> 
> Of course, though I'm sure if you submitted a new version just
> to prevent expiration, Barry would go ahead and approve it.
> 
> I think I can do a quick summary of the document and the
> conclusions of the virtual meeting, and you can join the
> meetecho to answer any questions.
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best