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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 12:18, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> So, if I might rephrase, you are worried about:
> - gaming the system (as previously noted)
> - not understanding the IETF culture and attempting
>  to make it that which it is not.
> 
> I hope I have that right.

That’s close enough wording to what I am thinking.

> 
> Asides from the fact that that leads to perpetuation and ossification, I think we are agreed that "some level" of established participation is required.
> 
> Now, I would argue that physically attending three IETF meetings does not do much more than show financial support from a sponsor organisation. I might even suggest that there are a few people who have attended a number of IETF meetings who really have no clue how the IETF works: they "vote" on mailing lists; they post individual drafts and are upset that no one converted them to RFCs; they don't read the drafts. So let's not make the barriers for remote participants such that we embarrass ourselves.
> 

Yes, we have had all of that.  None of this guarantees clue, and quite honestly, to address your other point, the culture sometimes does have to change. So long as that is a conscious change, that’s fine, but not knowing the culture means it would not be.


> On the other hand, I do agree that we need to see remote participants as, in some sense, full participants before considering that they can start a recall. So we are just arguing about the detail.
> 
> You (it seems to me) are suggesting a large number of potential criteria against which we can measure "involvement". I am looking for a more simple measure just like the 3-of-5 that we apply for physical presence where we don't additionally require co-authoring of I-Ds or some such.
> 
> I think we could arrive at an easy bar such as 5-of-6 when less than 3 have been physical.

I would be happy if someone attended so much as once, such that the 3/5 would apply. The lengthy criteria was just meant to lower the bar as far as possible, but one can certainly at least start simple.


> And I'm happy to talk about that. But the question of "culture" comes down to this: what is the IETF culture and where is it documented?

Oh I don’t even think we have to go that far.  So long as someone has an educated perspective, their entitled to decide that for themselves.

> Do I understand the IETF culture? Do you?

Yes, we both do.  But our understandings may differ ;-)

Eliot