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

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

Given the IETF history (at least as seen through my narrow keyhole) on 
handling process changes, there is a BIG advantage to doing small things.

If we undertake the discussion proposed below, it will take a very long 
time, and likely end up in the typical distribution of a modest number 
of people strongly in favor (of something) a lot of people wondering 
what the fuss is about, and a roughly similar modest number of people 
strongly opposed (to whatever).

In contrast, the focused items SM has proposed strike me as something 
that can be discussed in a reasonable time, and if folks stop trying to 
generalize the issue, actually get resolved (one way or the other).

I don't care whether the mechanism is a BoF, email list sponsored by the 
IETF chair, or a rotting band of singers (all singing badly).

Yours,
Joel

On 6/11/19 12:12 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 6/11/2019 11:41 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I remain concerned about broad statements opening up discussions
>> of the entire recall model (more about that in a note I have
>> written but hope I don't have to send), but perhaps something
>> like the above would respond to the need that others seem to be
>> feeling without significantly opening that door.
> 
> And I'd suggest that if we're going to expend any energy on this, we 
> deal with the actual problems with the recall process rather than the 
> deck chair counting.
> 
> Specifically, as currently described it's going to be something like a 
> 2-3 month process to start the recall, select the chair, form the 
> committee, get them up to speed on the requirements for the position and 
> reasonable reasons for recall, investigate the problem and finally have 
> a vote.   That's a lot of time to leave a potential recallee in limbo 
> and is probably not good for the IETF collaborative model.
> 
> And unlike the formation of the Nomcom and selection of the Nomcom 
> chair, having the ISOC chair select the recall chair has a number of 
> downsides including the possibility of the perception of selecting a 
> chair for a desired result.
> 
> 
> So instead of restating SM's conclusion as the goal of the BOF maybe use 
> something like:
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> a) Evaluate the current recall model for changes;  whether other 
> processes may be more appropriate for perceived needs; and whether the 
> recall process should remain part of the management process for IETF 
> leadership.
> 
> b) In light of (a) evaluate and possibly revise the initiation model for 
> the recall process including the possibility of revising or supplanting 
> the current petition based model; evaluate and possibly revise the model 
> for selection of the recall committee and chair; evaluate and possibly 
> revise the deliberation model for the recall committee and the rights of 
> the proposed recallee during the process.
> 
> c) In light of the addition of the Ombudsman process, evaluate how the 
> Ombudsman process should interact if at all with the recall process; for 
> example should the Obudsteam be used to investigate charged wrong-doing 
> asserted by a recall petition?
> 
> The BOF will report out one [or more] of the following:
> 
> a) Consensus is that no changes are necessary at this time.
> 
> b) We've come to consensus on the following changes:   {}  and we've 
> been unable to come to consensus on the following topics {}.  These 
> represent all of the topics considered by the group.  A draft covering 
> the consensus items shall be forthcoming.
> 
> c) We've been unable to come to consensus, however the group has 
> determined - through consensus - that there's enough interest to form a 
> WG to address these topics.  We have X people who have agreed to 
> participate actively. The charter is attached.
> 
> d) We've been unable to come to consensus and there is no consensus that 
> further deliberation at this time will result in progress.
> 
> _____________________________________________
> 
> Or something like this.   As I asked earlier - do we actually have 10 or 
> 20 people who think they want to spend some time working this process or 
> are we being DOS'd on a process question that few if any really care about?
> 
> We as the IETF have a hard problem of saying "no" at times - for WG 
> creation, for the publication of limited impact documents, etc.  It may 
> be time as a group to thank SM for his efforts and decline to proceed.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
>