Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:23 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Barry, Ekr, all,
>
>
>
> Ekr wrote
>
>
>
> > I assume we'll start by discussing whether these claimed
>
> > problems in fact need to be addressed?
>
>
>
> I’m a little concerned by the choice of language here.
>
>
>
> Barry presented three problems for discussion:
>
>
>
> >> - Remote participants are not eligible to seek redress through the
>
> >>   recall process.
>
> >>
>
> >> - Members of bodies appointed by the NomCom are also not eligible,
>
> >>   and this restricts the timely initiation of a recall petition.
>
> >>
>
> >> - The required number of signatories sets a very high barrier to
>
> >>    initiate a recall petition.
>
>
>
> The first one and a half of these are statements of fact. Using the phrase
> “claimed problems” seems to cast doubt on the facts, but they are not open
> for debate.
>

They may be facts, but that doesn't mean they are problems. As an analogy,
people who aren't US citizens aren't eligible to vote in US elections, but
that doesn't mean it's a problem. I appreciate that opinions may vary here,
but that's the point.

-Ekr