Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:58 PM S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Mr Rescorla,
> At 12:28 PM 17-09-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >They may be facts, but that doesn't mean they are problems. As an
> >analogy, people who aren't US citizens aren't eligible to vote in US
> >elections, but that doesn't mean it's a problem. I appreciate that
> >opinions may vary here, but that's the point.
>
> There are people from different countries who participate in the
> IETF.  I don't see how that analogy could be applied to cover those
> other cases.
>

Well, it's always difficult to explain analogies, but there are also people
from different countries who participate in (e.g., live in) the United
States, but they are still not permitted to vote.



> A statement of fact is something which is real or true.  I'll pick
> the first of the three issues: "Remote participants are not eligible
> to seek redress through the recall process".  I'll leave it to the
> other subscribers to determine whether that is a fact.
>

I mostly agree it's a fact [0]. I'm unpersuaded that it's a problem that
needs solving. There are a number of facts that some members of the
community might prefer were otherwise (for instance, some might not like
our IPR policy); that does not make them problems that the IETF needs to
address.

-Ekr

[0] I say "mostly" because the recall process cannot be initiated by a
single person. Rather, that person (even if not remote) needs to persuade
19 other people to agree. A remote person needs to persuade 20 people to
agree.



> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>