Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:23 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, if a WG is needed/desirable, you have captured the process. Although
> (of course?) if EKR wants his draft to continue, he would need to request a
> BoF.
>

Well, maybe.. BOFs and WGs are scoped to a problem statement, not an
document, and Mike and my draft would be clearly in scope for a BOF on
"revisit the procedure for removing I* members", whether I request a BOF or
not.

I understand that impeachment is a popular topic in some quarters at the
> moment, but I believe that recall has served us well for many years and we
> don't need to replace it, just modify its scope to enable the recent
> changes in participation.
>

This is an odd assertion in view of the fact that there has never been an
actual recall and the one near-recall seems to have been made much more
difficult by the clunky mechanism we have presently.

> Again speaking personally, I don't think a working group is necessary to
> work the issue in SM's draft,

As I noted in my initial comments on SM's draft, it's not clear to me what
"the issue in SM's draft is" (or, for that matter, whether it's a real
issue) so the first thing that would be required is to flesh out the
problem statement.

-Ekr

and I would like to see some progress made on that work relatively soon. I
> understand that a face-to-face discussion may provide some focus, but I
> also think that we could make some progress (as we just did with the thread
> about whether registered remote participation is an easy attack vector).
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eligibility-discuss <eligibility-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> On
> Behalf Of Eliot Lear (elear)
> Sent: 26 May 2019 10:59
> To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
> Cc: Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>; eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for
> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>
> I like the idea of a BoF on this topic. Were we to task the traditional
> questions to form a WG, I’m pretty confident that they would all
> (eventually) be answered in the affirmative.
>
> That doesn’t mean, SM, however, that I would agree that your draft is the
> correct starting point.  EKR’s draft covers many of my concerns, and from
> an incremental standpoint that is where I would prefer to start. Not that
> remote participation isn’t an important issue, but rather we have clear
> examples of where his draft could have helped, it is well scoped, and
> probably not THAT controversial.
>
> Eliot
>
> > On May 26, 2019, at 00:36, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rich,
> > At 03:05 PM 25-05-2019, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >>       The current description of the process for handling recalls of
> >>       NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 and is being
> updated in
> >>       draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis.  ...
> >>
> >>
> >> So why is your draft not appropriate to be discussed as part of the
> 7437bis document?
> >
> > If I am not mistaken, the Responsible Area Director for IASA2 determined
> that drafts which go beyond cosmetic updates are out of scope for that
> working group.
> >
> >> If your draft becomes an RFC at some point, do you expect it to say
> "updates 7437bis" ?
> >
> > Please see the first page of the draft.  It has an "Updates: 7437 (if
> approved)".  It is expected to update 7437bis if there is approval for that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
> >
> > --
> > Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> > Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>