Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 25 Oct 2019, at 10:07, Richard Barnes wrote:

> I can't speak for Eliot, but what you're saying would not allay my 
> concerns.  Note the "if and only if" in my earlier mail -- if people 
> have no skin in the game, they should get no say, not even as filler 
> on a form.
>
> Again, we need some guiding principle / problem statement here...

You, like Eliot, did propose a "skin in the game" principle. I did not 
see a clearly articulated reason that such a principle is the right one, 
other than it "leads to the right result", which simply re-introduces 
the question, "What is the 'right' result?" And even in your proposed 
list of determining skin in the game, you include "participated in 
discussions in meetings", which brings us back to the question of 
whether "remote registration" is a good way to capture that.

> ...not just negotiating details.

Aside from this being a bit hostile, I think it's also an unfair 
characterization: We often figure out what our principles are and 
whether we've articulated them reasonably by discussing particular 
details and seeing how they fit into our proposed principles. We also 
use such examples to explore how edge cases not captured by our 
principles can be handled.

I took Adrian's proposal as the latter: SM's document assumes (maybe) 
that 3/5 remote registration is a close enough metric for skin in the 
game, and Eliot's concern was that you could end up with people with no 
actual skin in the game initiating the petition. Adrian proposed 
requiring someone under the current rule to be on the petition as a 
backstop for the new metric being misused. I think it's reasonable to 
ask the question: Does using such a backstop allay the concern, or is 
there something more to the issue and we really need a better metric? 
This is not about negotiating some compromise.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best