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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I would put it differently.
We generally prefer to work on focused items.  While you may disagree 
with it, the scope as SM requested and Barry laid out is focused.  It 
does not raise the question of "what should we do about all the problems 
with recall?"

If recall is useless, then making a small change to the recall procedure 
is easy to do and harmless.

If recall matters, then we need to evaluate the tradeoffs in making the 
change that is proposed.  As such, it seems very reasonable for this 
list, and the discussion of this proposal, to assume that the recall 
process is at least somewhat useful.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/18/2019 5:29 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:24 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     But, I confess, I read Ekr's comment as though he was saying that
>     the existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom exists.
> 
> 
> No, I was responding to the narrow claim that John made that recalls 
> were the "community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone". 
> I now see his clarification and I think we are in agreement about the facts.
> 
>     SM's question was that, given that a recall process exists, should
>     remote attendees be barred from participating in a request for a
>     recall committee to be formed?
> 
> 
> I understand that, but when considering new work we don't generally feel 
> ourselves bound by the particular question that the proponents want to 
> raise.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
>     Best,
>     Adrian
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Eligibility-discuss <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Melinda
>     Shore
>     Sent: 18 September 2019 21:29
>     To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and
>     a virtual meeting
> 
>     On 9/18/19 12:11 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>      > The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each
>     other.
> 
>     I'm not EKR but I believe that the argument is that one obviates
>     the other - that bad actors can simply not be reappointed.  That
>     may be true, modulo schedules and whatnot (the risk of leaving
>     someone who's performing badly in place for longer than would be
>     the case if they'd been recalled).
> 
>     Melinda
> 
>     -- 
>     Melinda Shore
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>     Software longa, hardware brevis
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
> 
>