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

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

--On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 07:08 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:56 AM John C Klensin
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Thought about that way, even the analogy to US residents and
>> voters (or residents of any other country or jurisdiction who
>> are not allowed to choose their leadership) breaks down.  It
>> might be reasonable if both populations are treated with equal
>> fairness and respect but, if not, there are issues even if the
>> "who votes" issue is not deemed appropriate for a solution.
>> For example, if a non-citizen (non-voting) resident were
>> attached on the streets, I think most of us would assume that
>> ethical behavior would suggest that they have access to law
>> enforcement and other remedies rather than being treated as
>> sub-humans whom it is reasonable and appropriate to attack or
>> have attacked.
>> 
> 
> Actually, I don't think this analogy breaks down all. To the
> contrary, in the case you mention those people have recourse
> to the legal system but not to select their representatives.
> And similarly in the IETF remote people can appeal but cannot
> participate in the selection of leadership.

I suspect we should agree to disagree rather than pushing this
much further.  However, until the IETF changes its statements
about "IETF consensus" to reflect, if not "pay to play", at
least that the consensus is only among those who are well enough
financed (and resourced more generally) to attend a significant
fraction of meetings.   The political systems to which you refer
never make a claim of consensus (or even of open and
unrestricted participation) across their whole population.  The
IETF does.

I would prefer to allow remote participants full access and
participation rights in the leadership selection process as
well, but I see significant issues with all of the proposals
I've seen for ways to expand their access beyond making
nominations.  Initiating recalls appears to me to pose no such
challenge.

Moreover, I think there is an important distinction between
appeals (and right to appeal) and recalls.  Appeals are at least
nominally about a particular decision or action. 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.

   john