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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Something that is not in draft-moonesamy-recall-rev but which I floated
    > before, was that the list of signatures should not be exclusively remote
    > participants. That is, the petitioners would need to persuade some physical
    > participants to co-sign.

    > You might note, we already apply this today, but the threshold is 100%
    > physical participants.

    > I think that would help mitigate the risk of any attack.

I agree.

    > I'd also note that the draft doesn't just allow any old remote participant,
    > but still requires the 3-of-5 threshold. That means that anyone wanting to
    > DoS has to spend at least eight months preparing.

I am unclear if SM's recall draft enfranchises all remote participants are
nomcom eligible, or if it just does that for recall motions.  I agree that
the attack surface is not that big.

    > And I would like to contrast this with the enfranchisement issue which is
    > that two fifths of our meeting attendees are now remote. That means that the
    > IETF is (as it has always billed itself) an organisation where the work is
    > done on the mailing lists and through Internet-Drafts. Hooray for that!

!

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