Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

['Andrew Sullivan' <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I dropped ietf@.  No hat.

Apologies for the short post, but I'm unfortunately quite pressed for
time this week & can't devote the cycles to this it deserves.  But I
think there's one critical point I ought to make.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:33:21PM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> I wonder whether we need to break up this discussion into different topics
> (threads?) so that the bleed-over doesn't get in the way of our
> conversation.

We could definitely figure out a way to tease these different issues
apart.  Nevertheless, I think the overall point I was originally
trying to make is amply demonstrated:

> The topics are:
> 
> 1. Should members of the IESG and IAB (and other Nomcom-appointed people) be
> allowed to sign recall petitions?
> 2. Should seated Nomcom members be allowed to sign recall petitions?
> 3. How do we qualify "participation" at IETF meetings?
> 4. Should remote participants at IETF meetings be qualified to sign recall
> petitions?
> 5. What should be the number of signatories on a recall petition?
> 6. What is the right number of recall petitions?

This is a list of topics of sufficient breadth and sensitivity that I
think it needs unpacking and exploration.  I am not sure I agree with
your conclusions about obvious changes, but that's the sort of
discussion that I think is best had across the community.  And that
was really the point I was originally trying to make: this requires
the kind of care this community takes when it is going to make
sensitive or fundamental changes.  The way one does that in the IETF,
usually, as I understand it, is to form a working group, so that seems
to me to be the best path for this.

> One last point from me that might be applicable to the discussion of
> fractiousness. I don't think any of this discussion comes about because
> anyone is trying to form a recall petition. I don't think there is anyone
> expressing such extreme discontent or agitating to remove anyone. To the
> contrary: the best time to discuss and work on the backstop procedures is
> precisely when they are not needed.

I could not agree more, and I think it would be entirely correct that
now, at a time when the IETF has started to work out its new path for
administrative arrangements and with a newly-arrived IESG, the WG to
undertake this effort be formed and get to work.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]