IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions

"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Fri, 25 October 2019 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 02879120830 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GVL2UX6U-daX for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1E11208CD for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5B191C5E87; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:03:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51Zpdtthe_H4; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:03:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE0E491C5E7E; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:03:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, adrian@olddog.co.uk, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:03:58 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <B0B0A84A-D47D-475E-B37F-B6D9524A7D64@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <8D2605D0-33F0-4ED3-A063-A3F1469F3685@cisco.com>
References: <00c801d58a9a$53693c60$fa3bb520$@olddog.co.uk> <CB806045-0E5E-4445-A377-7CD547B9DD90@cisco.com> <010a01d58ac1$c0ab2320$42016960$@olddog.co.uk> <dc3bf13f-0178-8e4c-6680-ae3258ac1a9b@gmail.com> <865BF4B8-CB57-4586-8C2E-34B5218E53E2@episteme.net> <8D2605D0-33F0-4ED3-A063-A3F1469F3685@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/dIk-8HG3XU--QTomUUI9qqFF7Uk>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:04:05 -0000

On 25 Oct 2019, at 9:59, Eliot Lear wrote:

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 16:42, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
>>
>> Brian and Eliot (and anyone else who shares similar concerns):
>>
>> I did not see either of you address Adrian's proposed mitigation: 
>> Would requiring some number of physical participants to also sign the 
>> petition allay your concerns? If so, what would that number be? If 
>> not, why not?
>
>
> Yes.  Adrian is offering a an approximation method, which may limit 
> access initially to some in favor of simplicity.  I think two meetings 
> is sufficient.  Is it two meetings EVER or two out of the last N?  
> Dunno.

Eliot, you misunderstood my question and Adrian's original mitigation 
proposal:

Stick with SM's original proposal.

Add the requirement that there must be X people on the petition who 
meets the current rules (attended 3/5 physical meetings).

Would that allay your concern?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email