[Eligibility-discuss] The recall procedure and shaming

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 10:20 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> 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).
>...

This sort of got lost in the conversation, but I want to suggest
a radical idea and note something else that did not come up
clearly enough to be reflected in the minutes.  In reverse order
and noting that these are general thoughts about the whole
process and its utility, not just about the initiation
(petitioning) process.

>From what I remember of the POISED discussions, when the recall
model was designed, we were thinking a lot more about
malfeasance (engaging in active bad behavior in your words) than
about non-performance (failing to get work done or just
disappearing from the role).  Maybe there is a third category,
which is behavior toward, and positions on, the work of the IETF
that is seriously out of line with apparent community consensus
[1].  In any event, I think it would be very helpful if we tried
to separate the three in our thinking.  For serious
non-performance or disappearance, the recall mechanism may just
be wrong.  In ideal situations, and I would classify the one
case that almost went to a recall committee that way although it
took too long, the optimal answer is probably to more or less
privately reach out to the person involved and convince them to
voluntarily resign and step down.  If nothing else, that should
take less time and be less damaging to both the offending party
and the community.  If they obstinately refuse to do so, the
situation looks more and more like malfeasance.  For cases of
malfeasance, a careful, multi-step, process may be exactly what
we need (even though I worry about its taking too long). It is,
in any event different because non-performance or disappearance
can, in at least most cases, be objectively measured and
evaluated (even if one can imagine debates about whether someone
who is doing half the job should be forced out) while
malfeasance is almost always going to be a matter of judgment
and degree.

Second, what I heard on the call (others may have heard things
differently), I'm a little concerned about what seemed to be a
logic path between "this could be used to shame" and "therefore
we don't want to touch it".  It is oddly possible that the
recall procedure has actually worked rather well, but in a way
that has been largely invisible to the community.  People who
were behaving badly have occasionally been told "stop that or
resign or you will have to live through an unpleasant and
possibly career-damaging recall procedure" and that has brought
about changes in behavior.   I'm even aware of one case in which
someone was shown a petition with most or all of the required
signatures and given that same message.  Now those cases are
threats of shaming and offers of shaming and having the dirty
laundry washing in public would certainly be shaming.  But they
are also part of holding someone accountable and keeping the
IETF working.  If we never want to anyone to feel shames, then
we should eliminate the ability of the Nomcom to not return
people who were publicly willing to serve another term in their
positions.  And maybe we should figure out how to not disclose
the names of people who have indicated their willingness to
serve in particular positions because no being selected might
cause shame.

Let's be a little careful about what we wish for... or wish to
avoid.

best,
   john

[1] It is really a separate issue, at least IMO, but proposals
to let I* bodies remove their own membership are part of that
issue because, if we start removing people for that sort of
reason, we'd better be really sure that it is community
consensus they are out of line with, or "self-selection" by the
bodies is the least of our worries, especially because
dissenting voices and reminding the community about other
perspectives can be very valuable.