Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Seated Nomcom members

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8224D120159 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 02:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u-kk-VMgnxaB for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 02:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33BBA120316 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2019 02:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4820; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556787690; x=1557997290; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=ETONNlCyuW6veqGuIDCHczNBHRDKv3SK0wVmn/sndvg=; b=k5w0p9tpa5WQx3Si8+dlziuh39PqRYSN5tNJLWl7sTaoPFiQjAsaG+9G W5rQkcokhkOd2ZbENV9dgqKtjbfiwNBT3irg7FmXtRAT1BtOQ/irWjhoo rO2rj3yxtMd3uZgpO+7FPfPYqG/Cf/3oYeiXUdShxGyrcub6T8+rdVJcl A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AUAACQscpc/xbLJq1lGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVAIBAQEBCwGBZoFkASAShDiIe4woklaHdQIJAwEBhG2GWDcGDgEDAQEEAQECAQJtKIVMBCRWBRYEPgKEFAGBew+tIoEviiQQgTIBgUyKFoF/gTgfgkw+hB10gj0ygiYEkwSUHQmCC4IDgQKPOxuVO51/gncCBAYFAhWBZSKBVjMaCBsVZQGCQj2CdQEOjRE9A5I2glIBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,421,1549929600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="11723999"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 May 2019 09:01:12 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4676.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4676.cisco.com [10.61.82.67]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4291BZn005035 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 May 2019 09:01:11 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1596F338-E287-4E86-B760-12F713B893AC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Message-Id: <B51F7A89-A1BE-4EB7-9F5B-D6BC883A6D59@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 11:01:10 +0200
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk
To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.82.67, ams3-vpn-dhcp4676.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/bojnHRB3vjS1B9X1Mqpb7Jyu62U>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Seated Nomcom members
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 09:01:33 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for unpacking All of That.  I’m responding to two points after some all-to-short time off to some of your points.  I will do this in two separate messages.

> 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.

I think the issue here is that one doesn’t want NOMCOM members signing a recall petition based solely on information that was garnered during their deliberations.  These members have to put that information aside for purposes of signing such a petition.  I think you are also alluding to the possibility that petition signatory names may be held in confidence.  However, they oughtn’t be held in confidence against members of the recall committee.  That committee needs to be able to ask signatories why they signed, and to otherwise provide justification for their views.  I would worry less about current Nomcom members being signatories and more about the limited pool of people able to sign.  But I would worry less about BOTH if the number of required signatories is reduced.

Ok.  Back with the next one in a bit.

Eliot