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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36C61200F1 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0685LI473NAi for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22123120046 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id t8so694315lfc.13 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mYUhKJoto4vB8QtqMQQ6wnDLrClPT3eUT8ra9yE2fC4=; b=xJ97d8QcciQ2yjVPYA6mKK97FT7R1D3UTsz0Y22N4OjewWh9j+VMAaeOGoDFWD/FP1 0XMCkmsvyJio6xRrnGcu4SFhNO+pOk0RP8WECzgQcSuBtohMgdjqwUOoSc2Nr25rvert bIZaxeqpSXs+1XYoPVeIk+5KQraoUEVGIg+mO+MoTI/gwi+hpvOEoFJlTSyh+FwEpfUb LwImLulj/3rlnLPLBDZXtJKkDHM+IbSpwHa5rKl1b2xQRkyG2thiuynGRnLdmGGMQMhP 7NSmV3RQODUZpMli5CPqjI9MdA+atuHxiZOyN/a4Asesvco5N/cWApXSFoo4VPUx9X9H cxMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mYUhKJoto4vB8QtqMQQ6wnDLrClPT3eUT8ra9yE2fC4=; b=sgV5zWPxm/7lWUBMHx9H1a0kuXXn6yULPsIbVqLDP7VpxcrmmbumOmce5ym2AmPzfY UUFU30ekWp3S2L3LASwE0dLEfJFFQvWPx5oJ0rBRMDpvYeers35g+92/YToXD+uMjowk OeOadmokORmwhHlB53U8fSwB3vGT9YvqlhwwUE9qFIRGLnjon5L1/9o4Xjq3FA+8yTgh Ug021mgaI4NJp+9PfZFEZ9gRDjgeyYNbeRrtZpCktnzZ1Pzi7Z8Hs/53OyQVAJclINxb fPJ28Ov/PcAmuw6mK0lAlEi+sRAnHGoh4mYpKUBammYZKIDS8Qq88aOPBLUoIjdJdoYY oYrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXOwxIQ+fBQ1sqOXp3F9HHuSy5YZolr7nM8WjaIU/8lmeOJndIy JXwPU/NyOg8uS6F02BxQBNxP4G+zcdAlv7/c/sppVvjVaDU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9Fjg9ZCVVoaaqTWEsSC4f77uAzuMw/cZAV5nnJ4v0lh489xY8fjJEizqa7hVV1lQgwuQDoH2nCrsJhiFsOME=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5586:: with SMTP id v6mr3104439lfg.180.1568841916321; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <939D2A7C64A58595AD2B9CBD@PSB> <CABcZeBNxVgJE=jv7+Zf6RjkG3r-+00zuMQ=2mtESrP4skkPgzQ@mail.gmail.com> <4A244E1EFA8D1821D2D49ABD@PSB> <CABcZeBNmT2ONMacUiVsjUuR=cHz=fAog3ojNuhrD7P0eqQbOSQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190918125334.13e73f70@elandnews.com> <e1e2687f-bdba-edca-b3e8-247ca35ba0a5@nomountain.net> <2142e705-890e-44e0-7eb4-5524bc04227f@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <2142e705-890e-44e0-7eb4-5524bc04227f@joelhalpern.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:24:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNNo0X1PCsT1RyQ=s4_ANPt7gV=0XShy_CQhuhh6-5Btg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000021aa9c0592da7964"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/PVtLf3Q6QvWFaGpu7oyg0wW33fE>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:25:21 -0000

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> That (the possibility of using nomcom reappointment instead of recall)
> may be a choice in terms of balancing benefits and costs of solutions.
>
> It is not an argument for claiming there is no problem, unless one is
> taking the view that the recall process is irrelevant.  While some folks
>
are concerned that it is actually irrelevant, that is not part of what I
> understood as the scope for this.
>

Well, I do think the recall process is largely irrelevant, but my message
was in response to John's claim that recall was the "only socially
acceptable way" to remove someone, though I now see his reply clarifying
his position.

In any case, I don't see how we can not consider the effectiveness of
recall in the scope here. To the extent to which it is not an effective
mechanism, then we need to ask why before making changes.

-Ekr

>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 9/18/2019 4:29 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>