Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:33 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> Apologies for a delayed response, I was working the last couple of days.
>
> Thank you for your time and careful thought. It's really insightful and
> helpful. And, of course, the care and effort you put into selecting Nomcom
> chairs is really appreciated - I suspect most members of the community just
> see it as "something that happens".
>
> I wonder whether we need to break up this discussion into different topics
> (threads?) so that the bleed-over doesn't get in the way of our
> conversation.
>
> I see a number of separate topics. Of course they are related, but I think
> we might try to keep them distinct as much as possible. We should qualify
> this with the knowledge that a recall is very-much a position of last
> resort, but with the understanding that the very existence of the
> possibility of a recall is an important part of the structure of the IETF.
> Just like appeals, a recall is an element that allows us to trust the
> operational management of the IETF. It is not the use of these mechanisms,
> it is their availability.
>
> The topics are:
>
> 1. Should members of the IESG and IAB (and other Nomcom-appointed people) be
> allowed to sign recall petitions?
> 2. Should seated Nomcom members be allowed to sign recall petitions?
> 3. How do we qualify "participation" at IETF meetings?
> 4. Should remote participants at IETF meetings be qualified to sign recall
> petitions?
> 5. What should be the number of signatories on a recall petition?
> 6. What is the right number of recall petitions?
>
> Let's run through these in some more detail.
>
> 1. Currently serving Nomcom-appointed people are excluded from being able to
> sign a recall petition. Several people have suggested that the IESG might be
> in a position to police itself, and it does seem that there might be cases
> where the IESG or IAB is uniquely positioned to know of issues that make a
> recall a realistic option. I don't suppose that adding two dozen people to
> the list of potential signatories makes a big difference to the potential of
> a recall being initiated. I don't see any harm in this change and there
> seems to be some small potential benefit.
>
> 2. Currently seated Nomcom members are allowed to sign recall petitions.
> There seems to be general agreement that this would be a poor idea subject
> to concerns about Nomcom confidentiality. It may be an oversight in the
> original specification and is easy to fix. It doesn't seem that this change
> would have a substantial impact on the pool of people who may sign a recall
> petition, and the clarification looks like a good idea.
>
> 3. There is another thread running about how we might qualify people as
> having participated in IETF meetings. Currently we judge this by looking for
> those who have registered, paid and picked up badges: there is no actual
> measure of participation. So there is a theoretical puppetry that could
> occur, but it comes at a price.
> For remote participants we have several tools available: registration and
> Meetecho logs are the most obvious; physical presence at a remote hub is
> also a possible.
>

I help organize an IETF hub in Mauritius. However, most of the
participants of our hub
tend to be around 16-22 years old. Their interest leans more towards
implementation
rather than contribution to working group specs. Does remote ietf
hackathon count
as participation if running code is available at the end ?