Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodies removing their own membership
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 12:15 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7931200CE for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCfzAMNT1rjK for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE8B7120090 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1iPmsx-0000R1-Mu; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:15:35 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:15:30 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <A1ED83383C425799F1B1DEFC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20191030005251.14fab888@elandnews.com>
References: <99234A93-2224-47F1-AA65-C71DC5DA3CD3@episteme.net> <69DFC9FF020C06F8353314B2@PSB> <BD6598AF5EC96F4BD8BCBAC8@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20191030005251.14fab888@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/jgVHdIwv0dAJu0pm0SY275TVLtY>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodies removing their own membership
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:15:41 -0000
--On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 01:32 -0700 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote: > Hi John, > At 11:41 AM 29-10-2019, John C Klensin wrote: >> Hi. I've been thinking about the idea of the I* bodies being >> able to remove one of their own members and how to combine >> that with adequate safeguards. Let me make a specific >> suggestion to see if it gets enough traction for me to draft >> some text that could be dropped into the "equity" I-D. >> >> Suppose we followed the example already set by the ombudsteam >> and allowed those bodies, perhaps even by a simply majority >> vote, to initiate a recall process, bypassing the petition >> process. The rest of the recall process would run normally >> (modulo any changes we might make in the future). >> >> Would that be sufficient and mitigate at least most of the >> concerns? > > I'll use the IETF Trust as an example as the focus has been on > the IESG instead of all the bodies which has nomcom-appointees. > > Let's say that a majority of IETF trustees vote to recall one > of the trustees. The Recall Committee does not get the 3/4 > majority to recall that trustee. This is where things can get > awkward as you already have a majority of the trustees > formally agreeing that one of them has to be recalled. > > I'll comment about the IETF LLC. Let's say that one of its > directors does not attend several meetings. As there aren't > any attendance rules for that body, should that person be > recalled? > > An investigation is unnecessary if the starting point is a > presumption of guilt. That is what could happen once you > (used in general) take a formal decision early in the process. Subramanian, First of all, I need to continue to make a distinction between "dropped out" and non-performing on the one hand and malfeasance on the other. Maybe we need better remedies for the former, such as (using your LLC Board example, a rule that sufficient non-attendance or non-participation constituted an automatic resignation unless the other members of the body voted to retain the person. I can remember times when the IAB might have benefited from a rule like that. The comments below are about attempts at removal for malfeasance, including what has been called "inability to play well with other children" on other contexts. What you have said just increases the need and motivation for members of any of those bodies to act responsibly. First, I wouldn't propose anything that would prevent members of those bodies from initiation of a recall petition (rather than bypassing it) if they thought it best -- bypass would just be another, faster, option. Second, as others have pointed out, there is an intimidation factor in all of this. Suppose people sign a recall petition, their names become public (there arguments far and against keeping those names secret are complicated and we have not suggested changing the rule), and the recall committee then decides to retain the target. I'd hope the I* member involved and their supporters would be professional and mature about the situation, believe the petitioners had acted out of sincere belief and move on. However, human nature being what it is, some unpleasantness and possibly even retaliation against the petitioners is to be expected. If the recall committee decided to remove someone but the nomcom decided to fill the vacancy by returning them, those bad instincts might be even stronger and might be applied to the recall committee members as well as the petitioners. These things are why it is useful to consider options that increase the odds that people will take recall initiation seriously, even if those risks of retaliation and other negative behavior and probably enough for anyone who cares about the IETF and their roles in it. But none of this is goig to go away. I don't know whether recall initiation by special votes of members of the I* bodies is likely to be helpful (the "fifteen people on the IESG so they can just use the normal process if we cut the number of signatures down to ten" argument suggests maybe not). But I'm fairly confident that, if our conclusion is that we cannot do anything to improve the equity of the petition process or, down the line, to make some adjustments in how and how rapidly the actual evaluation process works, then the possibly-inevitable conclusion is that, whether we leave the recall process on the books or not, people are appointed for the Nomcom (or whomever) for the full duration of their terms and there is no way, short of assassination or its moral equivalent, to remove them until they serve out their full terms and hope that the next Nomcom does the right thing. best, john
- [Eligibility-discuss] Draft meeting minutes Pete Resnick
- [Eligibility-discuss] The recall procedure and sh… John C Klensin
- [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodies r… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Draft meeting minutes Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Draft meeting minutes Michael StJohns
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Draft meeting minutes Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Draft meeting minutes Pete Resnick
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… S Moonesamy
- [Eligibility-discuss] on re-using nomcom chairs (… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] on re-using nomcom chai… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodi… Warren Kumari