[Eligibility-discuss] Draft meeting minutes

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

I think I hit the big issues. Let me know if I should add any other of 
the less discussed issues, or if I failed to capture something fairly.

pr

-------------------

The eligibility-discuss Mailing List Virtual Meeting; October 24, 2019 
17:00 UTC
Pete Resnick chairing, taking narrative notes, and providing issue 
summary.

The meeting consisted of a quick presentation of the two documents under 
discussion (draft-moonesamy-recall-rev and draft-rescorla-istar-recall) 
by each of the authors, followed by commentary from the participants. 
The agenda being basically open, the only "minutes" here are the issue 
summary list and narrative notes below. Also included are the 
transcripts of the webex chat and the jabber chat that were used during 
the meeting.

Issue Summary:
--------------

The two drafts under discussion are primarily addressing two different 
issues:

draft-moonesamy-recall-rev is primarily addressing "equity" (that is, 
the fairness to remote participants to engage in the recall process).

draft-rescorla-istar-recall is primarily addressing "efficacy" (that is, 
the effectiveness and utility of the existing process).

While the question was raised as to whether equity was a problem worth 
solving, it did not appear to garner much support and appeared to be 
squarely in the rough in the meeting.

There was a good deal of discussion as to whether addressing the equity 
problem just for the recall petition was worth it, or whether it would 
be more useful to address equity across nomcom eligibility in general. 
The concern on doing the latter is that work is less likely to complete. 
The issue comes down to whether doing it just for the recall petition 
would be at all useful (or even might do some harm by sending us off in 
the wrong direction) versus whether doing it would be a good first step 
that could then be lead to other useful changes. In the chair's opinion, 
there seemed to be more convincing argument for the latter, but more 
discussion on this is probably warranted.

A major issue with draft-moonesamy-recall-rev was whether opening up the 
recall petition process to remote attendees would expose the IETF to a 
DoS attack (gaming the system) due to unfounded petitions. It was noted 
that the DoS was not on the nomcom-appointed bodies themselves, in that 
the recall committee membership itself cannot be exploited; only the 
petition requesting such a committee can have remote attendees under the 
proposed change. However, it would have an impact on the appointed 
recall committee chair and the volunteers for that committee. It's not 
clear to the chair whether this was sufficient reason was given for this 
impact being a showstopper, or sufficient evidence or reason to believe 
that this is likely to be attempted, but some further discussion to 
conclude is desirable.

Other less discussed issues:

On draft-rescorla-istar-recall, there was concern that this procedure 
could effective make the I* self-selecting, which was what the nomcom 
process was designed to eliminate. No particular response was made to 
this concern.

While there was concern about letting the I* actually remove their own 
members, there was an expressed desire to have the I* initiate a 
petition for their own members. It was pointed out that 
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev, in allowing I* members to sign a petition, 
and in reducing the number of signatures to 10, effectively allows that 
as written.

On draft-moonesamy-recall-rev, it was suggested that if there were 
concern about gaming the system, one possibility is to require at least 
some number of in-person participants to be on the petition. No 
particular resolution.

One concern about making the recall process easier to use is that the 
invocation of the recall procedure could be used to shame leaders who 
are failing to get their work done (as against those engaged in active 
bad behavior).

Narrative Notes:
----------------

Subramanian Moonesamy (SM): "Fairness" is part of the problem addressed 
in this draft
Eric Rescorla (ER): "Process doesn't work well" is part of the problem 
addressed in this draft

John Klensin (JK): Have had situations where a person was a good 
community representative, but unpopular on the body. Could result in 
self-selecting.

Warren Kumari (WK): Changing re-call is an easy first step change.
Given the lack of use now, we should probably do some dry-run 
experiments.

Barry Leiba (BL): I appreciate the "easy thing first" idea, but we may 
lose site of remote participants generally. Don't want to lose "nomcom 
eligibility"

Eliot Lear (EL): A little too loose for submitting petition. Should be 
higher demonstration of connection to community.

Adrian Farrel (AF): Caution against other than bite-size pieces of work. 
We have history of opening doors and everybody bringing issues and 
getting bogged down.

BL: Perhaps gendispatch could handle nomcom eligibility

SM: Perhaps an answer to EL is to have a "vouching person"

ER: Equity in an ineffective process doesn't seem terribly useful.
Not persuaded there is an equity concern; remote people participate 
quite well.

EL: Hard to judge equity issue because we haven't used the process. 
Perhaps it's unmanageable, perhaps bar too high. I would like us to make 
sure that any process should be available to remote participants.

JK: Note: It's really SM's work, just co-author because I did some 
earlier work.
Real problem with recall procedure is that the length of time it takes 
to do it makes it useless. Attacking it on a larger scale goes back to 
Adrian's comment. These seem like a small bite that might help on equity 
and ease.  Overhaul is too big to take on right now. Get these done 
first.

WK: Another small bite is also addressing "fear of recriminations" with 
some sort of anonymous signature.

Michael Richardson (MR): I don't know why this is a small bite. It is a 
zero step. I would split "becoming eligible" from "remaining eligible".

Patrick McManus (PM): Frustrating to deal with fringe process issues. 
With this, there are a lot of fallbacks (nomcom, etc.). This suggestion 
tips things toward people gaming the system. Nomcom eligibility is more 
important.

BL: There are three different kinds of remote participants: Been to many 
meetings but start being remote, come to one or two meetings but 
otherwise are active participants remotely, and folks who simply 
subscribe to lists. It's the third group that is the sticking point.

WK: This isn't a fringe issue. The reason we haven't seen recalls is 
because it's scary and long process. There have been times where it 
would have been used, but it was too hard to use.

BL: We've had times with blocking ADs, and recalls could have been used. 
Those things may have changed.

ER: Two issues: 1) Effective procedure: Then let's open the aperture and 
address the bigger issue.  2) Equity: Should address that more globally.

PM: I don't think having problems with co-leaders should be a reason for 
recall.

BL: EKR, couldn't I* people approach people in the community and start 
the recall rather than giving the power to I* itself.

ER: I've not seen it worth invoking kicking co-leaders out; 2-year is 
enough. Not sure anything needs to be done, but the limited proposal 
wouldn't be effective.

JK: Sometimes the bad performance is not visible to the broader 
community, so it might be useful to have I* sign petitions. (It might 
have been an accident that they were excluded by nomcom rule.) Also 
possible for I* to do the o-team process.

Alissa Cooper (AC): For people who aren't performing well on I*, they 
tend to already have a lot of shame. We should think about whether 
process increases shame. We should also think about people's fear of 
engaging in the process (like Warren said).

ER: For people who are not doing anything (as opposed to doing active 
harm), engaging the recall seems harmful. If that's the more general 
case (that people see invoking recall as harmful and therefore avoiding 
it), then this isn't going to address it.

Russ Housely (RH): Know example where the person had no shame.

SM: Most of the comments are about justification, not about the equity 
issue.

EL: EKR's draft seems orthogonal to SM's. Sympathetic to Alissa's point. 
As for whether docs are ready to go: Need to come up with good criteria 
for "meaningful participant".

ER: If efficacy is the question, then the drafts are competing. If it's 
about equity, then they don't compete, but perhaps there's not an equity 
problem.

JK: Problem is that the process for initiating is discriminatory against 
1) remote participants and 2) I*. The o-team method might make sense for 
I*.

AF: Everybody has a bit of a different problem statement; hard to write 
an all-embracing one.

SM: 2/3 of an I* body effectively is identical to 10, as defined by the 
draft.

PM: I do think actively harmful. We need to talk about what eligibility 
really means. Treating them loosely might harm in the future.

AF: We had concerns about misuse with the o-team. Did we have such 
problems there?

ER: Somewhat worried like Patrick regarding gaming the system. Not 
worried about franchising the I*.

Richard Barnes (RB): On the same page as Patrick. Inclined to have a 
broad discussion of participant eligibility. Don't want DOS attack.
We do see abuse of process elsewhere. This could at least be 
distracting.

Pete Resnick (PR): We haven't seen serious abuse of process on the 
o-team. In this case, the DOS is about initiation, not removal.

RB: Even initiation could be very much a DOS.

WK: We could have a standing "dismiss the nonsense" recall committee.

EL: I don't think we should worry too much about the DOS, but we should 
have a more serious look at what it is to be a participant / member of 
the community.

BL: Should we have a definition of something other than "participant"?

EL: Yeah, "participant" gets used all over the place. We might need 
another term for this.

JK: Slippery slope possible here. Attaching specific privileges to 
specific definitions could impact the very light definition of 
"participant"

RB: Multiple terms here might be good. Document development is different 
than other things.

JK: Most folks who we think of as trolls author documents and get 
mailing lists.

SM: Whether we should tie to BCP 79: Don't think so. Just being a 
participant isn't really enough.

BL: Do we think we can combine the SM and EKR document?

JK: The core of the EKR document is about removing without community 
involvement; that would be bad. We could allow I* to bypass petition in 
SM document, but that might already be solved.

ER: See earlier comments: Mine's not about equity, and I don't think SM 
addresses efficiency.

RB: This doesn't seem like there's enough consensus to do AD-sponsored. 
We need to agree to problem to solve.

BL: Question of "who can initiate recalls?" and the "how do we make the 
process faster?".

ER: Not clear to me what we're trying to do. If it's about equity, then 
they're separate questions.

PR: Summary

EL: We need some more discussion about whether there will be a DOS 
attack.
On question of equity, not sure we must, but we should.

Webex Chat Transcript:
----------------------

from Pete Resnick to Everyone:    12:05  PM
Monitoring here and eligibility-discuss jabber room
from Adrian Farrel (Guest) to Everyone:    12:15  PM
And (joyfully) you have to klick a second time to lower your hand even 
after you have spoken
from Warren Kumari to Everyone:    12:19  PM
Fair.
from Warren Kumari to Everyone:    12:20  PM
Fully agree.
from JcK to Everyone:    12:20  PM
Can we carefully distingish between  "change nomcom eligibility" and 
"decouple recall request eligibility from nomcom eligibility".  Both may 
be worthwhile, but they are different
from Pete Resnick to Everyone:    12:21  PM
Yes, well-noted John.
from EKR to Everyone:    12:22  PM
Hand
from EKR to Everyone:    12:23  PM
(I can't seem to do it from my UI)
from Adrian Farrel (Guest) to Everyone:    12:28  PM
There are 3 (not 2) things in the SM/JCK draft. The third is I* 
eligibility to sign a recall
from Eliot Lear to Everyone:    12:34  PM
Marshall Eubanks
from JcK to Everyone:    12:34  PM
@Warren: yes
from Eliot Lear to Everyone:    12:34  PM
Marshall Rose recalled himself from the IETF some years ago
from JcK to Everyone:    12:36  PM
@Michael: don't understand your proposal.  Are you suggesting that a 
remote participant who had never been to a meeting should not be 
eligib.e to participate in a recall petition?
from Eliot Lear to Everyone:    12:38  PM
Well put, Barry.
from EKR to Everyone:    12:39  PM
Barry, I would like to have my hand up
from ART Area to Everyone:    12:39  PM
EKR: ack.
from Michael Richardson to Everyone:    12:40  PM
@JcK, I sit on the fence about recall petition eligibility itself.  I am 
speaking about nomcom eligibility only.  I want to change the rules for 
remaining eligible to accomodate remote people.
from EKR to Everyone:    12:48  PM
Hand please.
from Eliot Lear to Everyone:    12:50  PM
Good points, Alyssa.
from JcK to Everyone:    12:51  PM
We have no proposals to make the distinction, but it seems that several 
of these comments point to a difference between recalls for 
non-performance (the Marshall case was an extreme example) and recalls 
for abusive behavior.   Maybe that is what ekr is saying now.
from Adrian Farrel (Guest) to Everyone:    12:53  PM
@Barry, erm, you did schedule a 1.5 hour meeting, didn't you?
from ART Area to Everyone:    12:53  PM
Yes, ta.
from Alissa Cooper to Everyone:    12:53  PM
@Russ, fair enough, not every case is the same
from EKR to Everyone:    12:55  PM
Hand at some point
from Pete Resnick to Everyone:    12:57  PM
Chair hand (but no need to interrupt queue).
from Warren Kumari to Everyone:    1:00  PM
Meh, I put my hand down. I agree with John though
from ART Area to Everyone:    1:00  PM
ack
from EKR to Everyone:    1:00  PM
Well, to the extent to which the problem statement is that it's unfair 
to the IESG, then my put is of course a different attempt to solve this
from EKR to Everyone:    1:02  PM
I guess I am back in the queue
from JcK to Everyone:    1:02  PM
@Warren: Yes, and that is why my original proposal that fed into SM's 
draft didn't give the IESG/IAB any special privileges or procedures... 
espeically if the total number of signatures was reduced.
from Richard Barnes to Everyone:    1:02  PM
hand
from JcK to Everyone:    1:03  PM
But I see little harm to letting a sufficient majority of those bodies 
bypass the petition process if people think that would be helpful.  What 
I'm concerned about it their being able to bypass the actually 
evaluation and removal process.
from EKR to Everyone:    1:05  PM
Hand
from JcK to Everyone:    1:10  PM
@Richard: Just remember that we went for several years, at a time when 
we had a number of certifiable trolls actively participating on mailing 
lists and the number of people needed to initiate the process with a 
petition was one, we had zero recall attempts.  Zero.
from JcK to Everyone:    1:12  PM
The fact that it didn't happen doesn't prove that it wouldn't, but it 
seems to me to be a weak argument for disenfranching people who are 
active participants by any measure other than showing up at meetings.
from Richard Barnes to Everyone:    1:15  PM
JcK - If you look at every other platform on the Internet, it happens 
all the time.  Regularly used to silence women and minorities.  To the 
extent we've escaped it, we've been lucky.
from EKR to Everyone:    1:19  PM
Hand
from Richard Barnes to Everyone:    1:20  PM
hand
from Michael Richardson to Everyone:    1:23  PM
Richard, are you saying that the problem statement(s) in the documents 
are not clear enough, or are you saying that this group is not clearly 
onboard with the statement in the document?
from EKR to Everyone:    1:23  PM
Hand
from Pete Resnick to Everyone:    1:24  PM
Chair hand.
from JcK to Everyone:    1:26  PM
@Pete: limiting it to the equity question was certainly my intent.
from Adrian Farrel (Guest) to Everyone:    1:27  PM
Ditto
from Richard Barnes to Everyone:    1:28  PM
i don't think it makes any sense to consider the equity question purely 
in the context of recall
from Michael Richardson to Everyone:    1:29  PM
my last word is that I'd like to do a BOF (Vancouver?) on "Remaining 
Eligible", which has nothing to do with recall.
from JcK to Everyone:    1:31  PM
Re the DoS attack situation, again the historicial evidence is that it 
hasn't been a problem.  If I'm an evil-doer and want to mount such an 
attack, the difference between creating 10 socik puppets or 20 is 
slight, so we aren't talking about preventing (possibly fictional) DoS 
attacks, we are preserving a state in which people who don't show up at 
a lot of meetings are disenfranchised and unable to use the procedures 
to protect themselves against abuse.
from Richard Barnes to Everyone:    1:31  PM
JcK: what i'm saying is don't enfranchise the sock puppets at all
from JcK to Everyone:    1:32  PM
If we can figuree out how to exclude them, I'm in favor of not 
enfranching them.   But the evidence is that there haven't been any of 
those.

Jabber Chat Transcript:
-----------------------

11:48 The topic is:
11:53 glen left the room.
11:53 Barry Leiba [[e-mail]/neptune] entered the 
room.

Pete Resnick
11:56 Greetings. Barry, SM, and I have joined the call. Still a few 
minutes to go.
11:57 Alexey Melnikov [[e-mail]/f2208818e8c5289e] 
entered the room.
11:57 MichaelRichardson [[e-mail]/dooku] entered the room.
MichaelRichardson
11:57 hi.

Adrian Farrel
11:57 What y'all talkin' about, now?

Pete Resnick
11:58 Airline mileage status so far.

Warren "Ace" Kumari
11:58 Reminder: Meeting link:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m53f271df6ae5f0a805c2f790d5809e48

Barry Leiba
11:59 Thanks, Ace.
MichaelRichardson
11:59 I really would like it if the webex link could always be in the 
agenda for a virtual interim.
11:59 SM [[e-mail]/Gajim] entered the room.
MichaelRichardson
11:59 Calendar->agenda->webex.. All nice clicks using this new-fangled 
http thing.
12:00 the "next"button on the webex does not work again.

Pete Resnick
12:00 Going in as guest?
MichaelRichardson
12:00 oh, apparently, + is no longer accepted by webex in email 
addresses.
12:00 CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A SLA FOR WEBEX?  OR STOP USING IT?
12:01 apparently, I need a meeting password?

Warren "Ace" Kumari
12:01 @michael: Webex gives us free service. Unless we find something 
else which will match that, it seems unlikely that we can easily moved

Pete Resnick
12:01 Alexey, joining us?
SM
12:01 Michael, use recall

Warren "Ace" Kumari
12:02 The link I posted should have wored without password.

Pete Resnick
12:02 Meeting number: 641 978 746
Password: recall
MichaelRichardson
12:02 I used to have a mic on my BT headset.  I don't anymore. Odd.
12:05 I will plug in old wired headset in a moment.  Apparently, it 
picks up 50Hz noise when in Europe.  I wonder if it will get 60hz now 
that I'm home.
12:05 I've just noticed that the *ART* area has a nice Picasso. HAHA.  
Good on you guys.
12:05 duh. I knew that.
12:05 Van Gough.
12:06 Russ Housley 
[[e-mail]/Russell-Housleys-MacBook-Pro] entered the room.
MichaelRichardson
12:11 so: Updated Recall Procedures for IETF Leadership                  
                                 draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00
12:12 what is SM's draft?

Adrian Farrel
12:12 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

Barry Leiba
12:17 Adding me to queue
SM
12:18 Warren: changing recall is an easier first step
MichaelRichardson
12:19 so, just to mention that the Kobain (I know that I spelt that 
wrong...) event was like 1992...  That's 25 years ago.  Very few even 
remember that event.
SM
12:19 Kobe
12:20 Barry: concerned that in doing that, we might lose sight of making 
remote participants eligible
12:21 raises hand
MichaelRichardson
12:21 why the focus on who can *initiate*, vs just sign a call?  Am I 
missing something?

Barry Leiba
12:21 SM: ack
SM
12:22 Thanks Barry
MichaelRichardson
12:22 (I don't think that the webrtc WEBEX has a raise hand button)
SM
12:22 Michael, the wording is that there need to be signatories to 
initiate that recall process

Pete Resnick
12:22 MR: My version doesn't have the hand.

Barry Leiba
12:24 MR: do you want to be in the speaking queue?
MichaelRichardson
12:24 SM, thank you, I went back to 3777 to be sure.
12:24 Rich Salz [[e-mail]/bos-mpu8n] entered the room.
SM
12:25 Michael, feel free to ask questions.  I can look up the 
information
MichaelRichardson
12:26 What EKR said.  I didn't realize that this spot was going to be so 
noisy.  I don't understand why we are focused on recall as an 
eligibility concern, vs selection opportunity.  If the recall committee 
has the same eligibility as selecting, then it's not just about who can 
initiate.  It's also about who can serve.
SM
12:27 Michael, you and I had a discussion about the nomcom change about 
five years ago.  I had a draft about that.

Barry Leiba
12:27 MR: The point of doing the "eligible to initiate/sign recall 
petition" first is to make a small start on what would otherwise be a 
large step.
MichaelRichardson
12:29 Yes, I would like to be in the queue.

Barry Leiba
12:29 After Ace.
12:29 Rich Salz has set the topic to: Eligibility-discuss Interim on 
2019-Oct-24

Rich Salz
12:30 gotta go to a work meeting.  good luck folks.  FWIW, I think more 
discussion is needed.

Barry Leiba
12:31 Thanks, Rich.

Rich Salz
12:31 thanks for picking this up!!
MichaelRichardson
12:33 . o O ( that's a really nice document you have.  Wouldn't want 
anyone to DISCUSS it, now would we )

Pete Resnick
12:34 Marshall Eubanks.

Barry Leiba
12:35 I'm in the queue after Patrick.
MichaelRichardson
12:37 What Patrick said.

Barry Leiba
12:39 Ah, I remember.  Back in the queue.
12:41 Barry in queue again, responding to EKR
MichaelRichardson
12:42 I agree with you Barry completely.  That's why we probably need 
three sets of rules here.  Category 1: John or Keith Moore or me in the 
late 2000s, who was eligible, but couldn't attend, but remained 
involved. Category 2: People who are actively involved (criteria are 
subject to large debate...) but have never become eligible.  Category 3: 
people who are peripherally involved.
12:43 I think that we should take a small bite which it to keep category 
1 people eligible.  I think that this could be relatively 
uncontroversial.  Category 2 could be done through a wide variety of 
systems, formulas, even plenary actions...
SM
12:51 raises hand

Barry Leiba
12:51 ack
MichaelRichardson
12:53 (so webex needs a gesture interface)

Adrian Farrel
12:54 No surprise, I agree with Michael about small bites.
MichaelRichardson
12:55 I lost audio.
12:55 it returned.

Adrian Farrel
12:55 I also think that, if (as has been claimed) we are fiddling with 
something that won't matter anyway, then I see no harm to fiddling
MichaelRichardson
12:56 @Adrian, I would agree.  I would "No Objection" on the documents. 
I am not clear which one to go with.  I don't think I care.

Barry Leiba
12:56 Barry in Q
MichaelRichardson
12:57 Agree with Barry. They could go together.
SM
1:01 raises hand
MichaelRichardson
1:06 IESG count is 15 now?  So you can get 10 signatures from just IESG 
members, which I think was SM's point just now.
I just spent three minutes trying to get a list of who is the IESG from 
ietf.org, and I failed...)

Barry Leiba
1:07 Quickest way is Tools -> Quick Links.
SM
1:07 Michael, please see Section 3.1 of draft-recall-rev-02

Barry Leiba
1:08 From there you have IESG: Members
SM
1:14 raises hand
1:29 Rich Salz left the room.
MichaelRichardson
1:29 Barry, I found it finally... because "Groups" spoke "Working 
Groups" to me, I didn't pick it.
SM left the room.
MichaelRichardson
1:33 I think we can find a way to exclude sock puppets.  I worry about 
setting the bar too high, actually.