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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

<No Hats>

> On May 26, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I probably can't speak to the cases you describe.
> 
> I did once start to put together a recall petition for an AD (so long ago that we need not dwell on the details). I found that collecting cosignatories was slow, but for good reasons. People generally said "Yes, bad stuff is happening, but recall is pretty serious. Can we think about other ways of handling this?". And, indeed, once the seriousness got discussed a bit, the AD concerned modified their behaviour (coincidence is not causation).
> 
> The process did not seem unwieldy to me, but making it more wieldy (for example by reducing the number of signatures needed) does not seem to be a bad idea to me. In fact, it is part of SM's draft, IIRC. 

 I agree with you. I think this could be a fairly non-baseline improvement. 

> 
> However, adding a new process that allows removal of a community appointment by other than the community looks like a way of just increasing the chances of appeals and additional recalls.

I am not entirely sure about this. I think the body in question might have more information than the community at large in some cases. In these cases allowing the body to self-correct may be useful. But I do see the concerns about potential ways in which this can be abused.

> I think it is a discussion we could have, but I also think it is independent of SM's proposals.

Agree.

Thanks
Suresh