Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

At least for the audience on this list,  I'm probably going to be in the
wilderness on this one.. I don't think a BoF here is the best use of IETF
energy..

There are really two questions. One is about the sweet spot of recall
difficulty - number of signers, etc... I believe that's an unimportant
question - leadership have short 2 year terms and its not like they possess
nuclear codes. Failsafes of some level of effectiveness exist already, and
the art of working around ineffective appointees is a common part of most
committee work that we should not expect to go away through rule tweaking.
Let's focus on tech, tech policy, and organizational outreach rather than
tuning the bureaucracy and the question proposed for the BoF is really just
what the right tuning is. Its not worth asking the plenary.

The larger question is about enfranchisement. but its not really about
recalls in any special way. This is an important question and, while the
various tradeoffs are apparent, the right answer is not obvious. More to
the point this is an important question in many contexts far more
significant than the recall process: nomcomm of course but perhaps the
entire question of leadership selection, hallway-track viability, interim
processes, funding, willingness to serve in leadership. etc. The definition
for recall is currently linked to the definition for nomcomm and that makes
a lot of sense. Let's discuss enfranchisement in a context where it will
actually have a meaningful impact and then apply the findings consistently
if changes are deemed appropriate.

-Patrick

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:59 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> How about phrasing the problem as “You need too many people to sign a
>> recall petition, and that makes it too hard to achieve a recall”?
>>
>
> Without taking a position on the merits, that seems more like a problem
> statement. An even crisper statement, perhaps, would be "It's too hard to
> achieve a recall"
>
>
> We can agree or disagree about whether this is a problem and whether we
>> want to work on it. That’s why we have BoFs and mailing lists.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> We can debate the correct solution for each problem, but (usually, when we
>> have a BoF) the discussion of the solutions is sequenced after the
>> discussion of the problems and agreement that we want to work on the
>> problems.
>>
>
> Agreed. That's what I'm hoping for here.
>
> -Ekr
>
> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
>> *Sent:* 11 June 2019 13:32
>> *To:* Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> *Cc:* Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; Alexey Melnikov <
>> aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>;
>> eligibility-discuss@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>;
>> John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for
>> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> H/mm..  These don't seem like "issues" so much as restatements of the
>> solution SM's draft proposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> To take a specific one, what issue is addressed by reducing the number of
>> people required to sign the petition?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fewer people would have to set themselves up as targets for retribution;
>> the pool of people able to serve on the recall committee is marginally
>> increased.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's helpful, but I think it also suggests that the problem statement
>> that SM has written is not really right: for instance, we could solve the
>> problem of people being targets of retribution by having the signers be
>> secret [0].. And we could address the pool issue by letting them serve on
>> the committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> OTOH, it seems to me that the purpose of these requirements is to have a
>> certain level of accountability for the people requesting the recall and to
>> have a certain minimum level of support. So, is it clear that we actually
>> want to relax those objectives?
>>
>>
>>
>> in any case, I think this exchange suggests that the first thing that's
>> needed is a problem statement that's decoupled from the solutions being
>> proposed.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>> [0] I'm aware that there are challenges here in verifying eligibility. I
>> believe there are solutions here, though they are too small to be contained
>> in this message.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:22 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> That's nice. I like the clarity.
>>
>> I also like that the worms are kept firmly in their cans. It is without
>> doubt that a hundred other issues concerning the recall process could be
>> aired, and I am certain that many people have different hot issues. But I
>> firmly believe that addressing a few at a time is the best (only!) way to
>> make progress.
>>
>> If it turns out that there is support for resolving any of these three
>> issues, they can be quickly picked off and we can move on to other issues
>> if
>> there is interest. If there is no support for addressing these three
>> concerns, then they can be put to one side and work can start on other
>> issues if there is interest.
>>
>> For my part, I think that all three issues should be addressed, and I
>> think
>> that the approaches suggested in SM's draft are a good starting point for
>> discussion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eligibility-discuss <eligibility-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> On
>> Behalf
>> Of S Moonesamy
>> Sent: 11 June 2019 11:45
>> To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com
>> <suresh.krishnan@gmail..com>>;
>> eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net
>> >;
>> Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
>> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for
>> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>>
>> Hi Suresh,
>>
>> Please see a revised version of the BOF proposal to address your comments:
>>
>> Problem statement
>>
>>       The current description of the process for initiating petitions
>> for recalls
>>       for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 and is
>> being updated in
>>       draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis.  The scope of this work addresses only
>> three
>>       specific issues with the petition process; other parts of the
>> recall model
>>       and other ways of removing Nomcom-appointees are explicitly out of
>> scope.
>>
>>       The three issues are:
>>
>>       - Ineligibility of remote participants to seek redress through the
>>         recall process;
>>
>>       - Reducing the number of signatories for a recall petition;
>>
>>       - Ineligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom
>>         Appointees to sign a recall petition.
>>
>> The purpose of the BOF is to examine the above-mentioned issues and
>> determine,
>> for each, whether it is sufficient interest and importance.
>> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>> is a possible starting point for the effort.
>>
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
>>
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>>
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>>
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>