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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I don't want to oppose your proposals to work on NomCom eligibility. In
    > fact, I encourage you and I hope we can get somewhere with it.

    > But, I feel you are overriding the discussion. You are welcome to say "I
    > think your problem is boring and I don't want to work on it," but why should
    > that stop others from completing a small piece of work with an incremental
    > improvement?

Because:
  1) it takes time and energy to get done
  2) potentially results in a bunch of additional questions that must now be
     resolved in future work, and
  3) seems to be a solution to a problem that we do not clearly have
     (what would we do for solutions without requirements in protocol space...)

For instance, will in SMs document, it is unclear to me who is eligible to be
(randomly) selected for the recall committee.  Do the new criteria apply?
(it doesn't say that).

If so, then the group of people who remove a member is different than the
group who can seat them.

If it's the original nomcom eligibility criteria, then the group of people
who can sign the petition might not be able to participate in the actual
removal.   But, maybe we don't even WANT any of the 10 (or 20) signators of
the original petition to be on the recall committee....  maybe we want them
available to "testify"?

Assuming we answer the above questions, have we just created a different pool
of people at great administrative cost, which will effectively never get used?
I can see a lot of "slippery slope" arguments coming at this document during
IETF LC, which will basically triple the amount of time it's gonna take.

Section 2.2 about Remote Participants tells me nothing about how the criteria
would apply.  Registered remotely... but did they pick up their badge?
(Because I think the secretariat removes people from the list who didn't show
up in person)

So in my opinion, solving the nomcom eligibility problem for remote users
solves the recall problem as well.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-