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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

With regard to your BoF proposal below, I think it’s fine, but it looks more like a WG charter.  I propose we use it as a starting point as such.  I would add some scoping so that this doesn’t stretch beyond recalls.

Eliot

> On 11 Jun 2019, at 18:12, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 6/11/2019 11:41 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I remain concerned about broad statements opening up discussions
>> of the entire recall model (more about that in a note I have
>> written but hope I don't have to send), but perhaps something
>> like the above would respond to the need that others seem to be
>> feeling without significantly opening that door.
> 
> And I'd suggest that if we're going to expend any energy on this, we deal with the actual problems with the recall process rather than the deck chair counting.
> 
> Specifically, as currently described it's going to be something like a 2-3 month process to start the recall, select the chair, form the committee, get them up to speed on the requirements for the position and reasonable reasons for recall, investigate the problem and finally have a vote.   That's a lot of time to leave a potential recallee in limbo and is probably not good for the IETF collaborative model.
> 
> And unlike the formation of the Nomcom and selection of the Nomcom chair, having the ISOC chair select the recall chair has a number of downsides including the possibility of the perception of selecting a chair for a desired result.
> 
> 
> So instead of restating SM's conclusion as the goal of the BOF maybe use something like:
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> a) Evaluate the current recall model for changes;  whether other processes may be more appropriate for perceived needs; and whether the recall process should remain part of the management process for IETF leadership.
> 
> b) In light of (a) evaluate and possibly revise the initiation model for the recall process including the possibility of revising or supplanting the current petition based model; evaluate and possibly revise the model for selection of the recall committee and chair; evaluate and possibly revise the deliberation model for the recall committee and the rights of the proposed recallee during the process.
> 
> c) In light of the addition of the Ombudsman process, evaluate how the Ombudsman process should interact if at all with the recall process; for example should the Obudsteam be used to investigate charged wrong-doing asserted by a recall petition?
> 
> The BOF will report out one [or more] of the following:
> 
> a) Consensus is that no changes are necessary at this time.
> 
> b) We've come to consensus on the following changes:   {}  and we've been unable to come to consensus on the following topics {}.  These represent all of the topics considered by the group.  A draft covering the consensus items shall be forthcoming.
> 
> c) We've been unable to come to consensus, however the group has determined - through consensus - that there's enough interest to form a WG to address these topics.  We have X people who have agreed to participate actively. The charter is attached.
> 
> d) We've been unable to come to consensus and there is no consensus that further deliberation at this time will result in progress.
> 
> _____________________________________________
> 
> Or something like this.   As I asked earlier - do we actually have 10 or 20 people who think they want to spend some time working this process or are we being DOS'd on a process question that few if any really care about?
> 
> We as the IETF have a hard problem of saying "no" at times - for WG creation, for the publication of limited impact documents, etc.  It may be time as a group to thank SM for his efforts and decline to proceed.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss