Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've changed the destination list on this.  Again, no hat.

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 12:16:45PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
> The draft does not make any change to the section about the Internet Society
> President.

Yes, I'm aware.

> There is the following sentence in the Note Well: "By participating in the
> IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes and policies".  Signatories are
> "expected to be familiar with the IETF processes and procedures, which are
> readily learned by active participation ..."  It is the up to a signatory to
> show that he or she participated in those IETF meetings.

That does not clarify the issue of "participation" at all.  We can't
have it be a criterion of eligibility if it does not have a
well-defined public meaning.

> Please see draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00 as it discusses about
> different types of attendees.

I don't see how that is relevant.
 
> From what I recall, it only took one appointee to negatively impact the work
> of the administrative support activity.  Russ explained why it was not
> possible for the body to exercise the recall process option.

Sure, and in the end we solved that problem and then did not actually
have a problem gettinh the signatures together, from what I recall.
In any case, the evidence is that we were in fact able to persuade the
person to leave which meant that we didn't actually need to exercise
the entire procedure.

> There are 10 random persons who choose the so-called "leadership" each year.

Actually, there are 10 randomly-chosen people from a pool of people
who have been qualified from a well-defined meaning of having
participated in the processes of the organization.  Whether that
definition is adequate might be up for debate, but it is a clear and
complete definition, which is not what's in the current draft.

> The persons  do not have to have to participate on this mailing list even
> though this is usually the place where IETF policies are discussed.  What is
> the difference between them and 10 random persons who participate remotely?

One difference is how they are qualified.  Another difference is that
their decisions are subject to confirming bodies.  A third difference
is that they are selecting among possible candidates or none in a
process that has multiple turn off points.
 
> Is an accountability mechanism a way to hold the so-called "leadership" to
> ransom?

It can be, if it is poorly suited to purpose.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]