Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

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

--On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:50 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:24 AM John C Klensin
> <[e-mail]> wrote: . Recalls are the
> 
>> community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone
>> who has exhibited a consistent pattern of unacceptably bad
>> behavior, whether it is demonstrated through particular
>> decisions or not.
> 
> This seems like a rather odd claim, given that we have any
> number of worked examples of people being successfully removed
> by the ordinary nomcom process.

I should have said "removing someone before the next nomcom
cycle".  Sorry.  I'm busy and have been told to use fewer words,
so I thought that would be clear.  Of course, given how slow and
painful the recall process is, one could argue that one doesn't
need it at all but should simply wait for the next nomcom.  I
believe that is any argument you'd made in suggesting that the
IAB and/or IESG should be able to remove their own members for
non-performance.  Or if may be an argument that the recall
process needs far more radical modification than Barry's list of
issues would suggest.  

Of course, whether there is any sort of out-of-line behavior
(with the possible exception of disappearing completely) severe
enough to justify removal rather than just waiting for the next
relevant nomcom to do its work.  I believe the answer is "yes".
That is certainly debatable but, if that is what we are really
discussing, let's be explicit about it.

best,
   john