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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 11 June 2019 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 3854012010C for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wai1AdDEZF02 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 891D0120025 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1hakPm-000DWf-F6; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:18:30 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:18:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <9C18B7DC9C307B3DBD8E76BA@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <4FF5A2A6-FC52-4C90-9E25-A4A5FDEA4CFA@cisco.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190601204707.0bf89070@elandnews.com> <D58B591C-9140-4273-AA11-59E2EBD101FE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190611033500.0c619e48@elandnews.com> <065101d52047$d35ea620$7a1bf260$@olddog.co.uk> <CABcZeBOX3PURx57jE1poyBt-VxdbVbcFp-E+eocPMH6fsBq6qw@mail.gmail.com> <1AE7F6A0-F278-42A5-9E55-4DA94A38CB01@cisco.com> <CABcZeBMbGOA09rRVuq2WK6SJ-pK8hAjxgMz5EaBm5-h9RGLk3g@mail.gmail.com> <066801d52053$650ea290$2f2be7b0$@olddog.co.uk> <CABcZeBMzca2JGBMtuURnHp4UomSbkwmLUmaW2OEeMTZF-Wfw3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNpCbkXU69X6PCfJ9q8cG-RA+mPHzWu=ga-Yq_0nMV_-+w@mail.gmail.c om> <4FF5A2A6-FC52-4C90-9E25-A4A5FDEA4CFA@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/PgpbBMVFnj69twtgq2dXWQugoGw>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:18:35 -0000


--On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 18:44 +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:48, Patrick McManus
>> <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> . One is about the sweet spot of recall difficulty - number
>> of signers, etc... I believe that's an unimportant question -
>> leadership have short 2 year terms and its not like they
>> possess nuclear codes.
> 
> 
> I think this very much depends on your business.  Knowing that
> the standard can be dinked right up until the IESG, if someone
> disappears from that process, your feature scheduling goes out
> the window.  Possibly your release planning as well.  Now some
> variability has to be allowed for in this process.  Weeks,
> maybe even small number of months.  Large #s of months or even
> years is not an acceptable #.

It seem to me that this would apply even more strongly if
someone on, say, the IESG decided to adopt an obstructionist
position relative to your ideas, your company, or, noting your
earlier comment about retaliation, you as an individual.  In
such situations, the IESG has tools to move ahead in spite of
that AD, but they have proven in the past to be time-consuming
and to impede overall progress when the offender is obstinate,
so trade-offs get made, maybe trade-offs that would be less
necessary with a more effective recall mechanism.

Personally, I believe that the IETF is in need of a faster and
lighter-weight mechanism for getting rid of someone who has
disappeared then relying on the present recall process.
However, because I've seen little or no evidence that the
community is ready to deal with a redesign of the recall model,
or the nomination and selection models more generally, I
continue to hope that this discussion can be kept focused on the
particular issues in the petitioning process identified in
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

best,
   john

> 
> And that would encourage people to do work elsewhere.  And so
> it's harmful to this organization when someone fails to show
> up for an extended period of time.
> 
> Eliot