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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

OK, discussion has settled down, so here's a doodle:
     https://doodle.com/poll/ip8w53k8en32553f

Basically:
I'm proposing four possible days, and four possible times on each day,
for 16 choices.

In New York time, the days are 23, 24, 28, and 29 October.  The times
are 3 AM, 1 PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM.

For any particular likely participant, some of those times are good in
your time zone, and some are horrible.  The doodle is set up as a
"yes/no/if need be" poll, and I ask you to please consider (as I've
done for the 3 AM slots) selecting "if need be" for the times that are
bad in your time zone, realizing that some set of participants will
have to suffer a bad time zone, and it might not always be Brian and
others in that part of the world.

Please doodle quickly, and let's try to get a date/time selected ASAP.
No later than end of day on 3 Oct, please.

Barry

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:34 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, all.
>
> I am serving as the responsible AD for a virtual meeting (via WebEx)
> and ongoing work to address what's been discussed on this list (the
> "eligibility" list).  See below for the problem statement that will
> drive the virtual meeting, and let's see where we get from there.
> This meeting will serve to progress the work that's started on this
> list -- we expect that to be continued on the list and we will have
> further virtual meetings if the participants think that will best help
> keep things progressing.  This is a start, not a conclusion.
>
> I want to have an experienced co-chair and a co-chair from among the
> remote participants to handle this.  I'd like to find people who could
> see the work through if it should form a working group, but for now
> I'm looking for chairs for the virtual meeting and short-term
> follow-up.
>
> Pete Resnick has agreed to be the experienced co-chair.  I'd like to
> avoid having as chairs those who have been (and want to be) very
> active in the discussion.  If others of you -- remote participants who
> want to see this work be done but don't intend to be major
> contributors -- would like to volunteer as co-chairs with Pete, please
> let me know off list.  Ideally you will be interested in learning how
> to lead consensus building in an IETF group, and would want to
> continue your participation beyond this limited work.
>
> The rules for virtual meetings require that we give two weeks' notice
> of the meeting time, but I'd like to do closer to four weeks, so we
> need to nail down a date very soon.  It's going to be challenging to
> find a time of day that works for enough of us, and I'll have to ask
> people to be very flexible about times, realizing that *someone* is
> likely to have to participate at a pretty awful hour, local time.
>
> I'd like to get feedback on this plan in the next few days, and then
> put out a doodle around the end of the week to try to pick a day and
> time.  If you intend to participate, please post to this thread your
> intent and your time zone (as "UTC-4", "UTC+1", and so on, relative to
> UTC).
>
> I think we do need to decide, as a group, whether the limited update
> to the recall process is important enough to stand on its own... or
> whether it makes more sense to address the broader issue of
> enfranchising remote participants, and to update the recall process as
> part of that.  There will certainly be time in the virtual meeting to
> have that discussion.
>
> Barry
>
> ================================
> Problem statement
>
> The current description of the process for initiating petitions for
> recalls for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 (updated
> by draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis, in the RFC Editor queue).  That
> process needs updates.
>
> The scope of this work includes the following 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:
>
> - 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 virtual meeting
>
> The purpose of virtual meeting is to examine the above-mentioned
> issues and determine, for each, whether there is sufficient interest,
> agreement, and importance to continue work on that item, and, if so,
> how to best organize that work.  A possible starting point for the
> work is draft-moonesamy-recall-rev.
>
> This is all part of a larger set of discussions surrounding both the
> recall process and the eligibility of remote participants to be voting
> members of the NomCom.  In order to keep the work bounded, for the
> purpose of this meeting these larger discussions are secondary: they
> will be discussed, but we should try to maintain a tactical focus.
> ================================