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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

> On 11 Jun 2019, at 14:31, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.

I agree with your 2nd sentence, but not your first, at least entirely.  It’s just just about eligibility, but also about the recall committee being able to understand the concerns of those seeking to have someone removed.  But I think your general point is well made: there needs to be one or more crisp problem statements to start with, and then various approaches can be considered to address the matter(s).

Eliot


> 
> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf
>> Of S Moonesamy
>> Sent: 11 June 2019 11:45
>> To: Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Cc: John C Klensin <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Warren Kumari <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>> Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> 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
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>
>> 
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>
> 
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss