Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodies removing their own membership

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 05:15 AM 30-10-2019, John C Klensin wrote:
>First of all, I need to continue to make a distinction between
>"dropped out" and non-performing on the one hand and malfeasance
>on the other.  Maybe we need better remedies for the former,
>such as (using your LLC Board example, a rule that sufficient
>non-attendance or non-participation constituted an automatic
>resignation unless the other members of the body voted to retain
>the person.   I can remember times when the IAB might have
>benefited from a rule like that. The comments below are about
>attempts at removal for malfeasance, including what has been
>called "inability to play well with other children" on other
>contexts.

There are usually procedures in which the expectations are 
documented.  Such procedures become useful in cases where 
non-performance has a negative impact on decision-making.  There can 
also be rules which specify how cases of wrongdoing (you used the 
word "malfeasance") are handled.

I can think of exceptions for the above-mentioned cases.  For 
example, there might be an explanation for what someone out there 
considers to be wrong.

>What you have said just increases the need and motivation for
>members of any of those bodies to act responsibly.  First, I
>wouldn't propose anything that would prevent members of those
>bodies from initiation of a recall petition (rather than
>bypassing it) if they thought it best -- bypass would just be
>another, faster, option.   Second, as others have pointed out,
>there is an intimidation factor in all of this.  Suppose people
>sign a recall petition, their names become public (there
>arguments far and against keeping those names secret are
>complicated and we have not suggested changing the rule), and
>the recall committee then decides to retain the target.  I'd
>hope the I* member involved and their supporters would be
>professional and mature about the situation, believe the
>petitioners had acted out of sincere belief and move on.
>However, human nature being what it is, some unpleasantness and
>possibly even retaliation against the petitioners is to be
>expected.  If the recall committee decided to remove someone but
>the nomcom decided to fill the vacancy by returning them, those
>bad instincts might be even stronger and might be applied to the
>recall committee members as well as the petitioners.

It is very difficult to justify providing anonymity of signatories 
except in narrow cases.  I agree that, as you mentioned, it is not a 
pleasant situation for all the parties involved.

Returning the person who has been recalled requires the approval of 
both a future Nomcom and the confirming body.  My current thinking is 
that it is not worth figuring that one out.

>But none of this is goig to go away.  I don't know whether
>recall initiation by special votes of members of the I* bodies
>is likely to be helpful (the "fifteen people on the IESG so they
>can just use the normal process if we cut the number of
>signatures down to ten" argument suggests maybe not).  But I'm
>fairly confident that, if our conclusion is that we cannot do
>anything to improve the equity of the petition process or, down
>the line, to make some adjustments in how and how rapidly the
>actual evaluation process works, then the possibly-inevitable
>conclusion is that, whether we leave the recall process on the
>books or not, people are appointed for the Nomcom (or whomever)
>for the full duration of their terms and there is no way, short
>of assassination or its moral equivalent, to remove them until
>they serve out their full terms and hope that the next Nomcom
>does the right thing.

One of the issues raised is the speed of the process.  My guess is 
that a recall process may be doable in around two to four months.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy