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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 4B7381200C5 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 1fUpZL_2UGXk for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA12C120168 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4732; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1572017975; x=1573227575; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=OJt+OzZsrJkmnQ3fAIgtdZ79x25+XER2d5SqIB7wHCI=; b=nIcQCWoL+tNGA5P0YykU3h5xtiZcINnpSs0jpJPAZz4nd6vTsXYn9PoZ Z557HPX1lAYKkXKQgZw0R40jm90D6JK8hSP4SvpNzTEutXXa0j1TfmMhI YdTCdGA8bJgjCyeGU+nMHQJwqX3F5oT5wdJa5nsnctGATQ/R2kb3s2gNK Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AUAADvFrNd/xbLJq1lGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBgWkCAQEBAQELAYNfIBIqhCiJBIdnJZMkhg+BewIHAQEBCQMBAS8BAYFMgnQCg2M2Bw4CAwEDAgMBAQQBAQECAQUEbYVDhVABAQEBAgEjVgULCwQOBioCAkkOBhMVgw0BglcgsVt1gTKFToRrEIE2AYFSilSBf4E4DBOCTD6EJQEBgy4ygiwEljWXMIIugjOBE5FnG44YizukdIMUAgQGBQIVgVkHK4FYMxoIGxVlAYJBPhIQFIMSF44lPwMwjWOCTAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,229,1569283200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="18365861"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 25 Oct 2019 15:39:27 +0000
Received: from [10.61.195.187] ([10.61.195.187]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9PFdNq5004816 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:39:27 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <DAFDEC0A-8791-4C26-8D54-E2D6A8C50B46@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_054D827A-1181-4038-BF9C-6FBBD6B5143D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:39:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <F5AD56FA-AE72-4A30-8876-617479C1BDF9@episteme.net>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, adrian@olddog.co.uk, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
References: <00c801d58a9a$53693c60$fa3bb520$@olddog.co.uk> <CB806045-0E5E-4445-A377-7CD547B9DD90@cisco.com> <010a01d58ac1$c0ab2320$42016960$@olddog.co.uk> <dc3bf13f-0178-8e4c-6680-ae3258ac1a9b@gmail.com> <865BF4B8-CB57-4586-8C2E-34B5218E53E2@episteme.net> <8D2605D0-33F0-4ED3-A063-A3F1469F3685@cisco.com> <B0B0A84A-D47D-475E-B37F-B6D9524A7D64@episteme.net> <CAL02cgQii6iuzh+sXd=S5T7ftOG+LeOcRKdtAkvhiTgVGFDT7w@mail.gmail.com> <F5AD56FA-AE72-4A30-8876-617479C1BDF9@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.195.187, [10.61.195.187]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/L3Rx-SWRCUVcfGCJTvsLoYIltXw>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:39:37 -0000

Hi Pete,

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 17:26, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
> 
> On 25 Oct 2019, at 10:07, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Again, we need some guiding principle / problem statement here...
> 
> You, like Eliot, did propose a "skin in the game" principle. I did not see a clearly articulated reason that such a principle is the right one…

Just to answer this head on: my reasoning is that a problematic leader impacts those whose work she or he governs from a work product standpoint.  Examples:

AD no show: slows work for everyone, and can impact software/product.
AD proprietary favoritism: slows work for some for purpose of impacting architecture/stalling competition.

For the record I haven’t perceived the latter as having happened.  Just a theoretical.  Now this is just the “skin in the game” aspect.  There is also the culture aspect.  I think Adrian’s later proposal manages a pretty good proxy for both.

Eliot