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

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

The reason I made a comment on this topic is because the amount of
discussion related to recall struck me as embarrassing.

I am reminded of kids in a clubhouse, no doubt bearing a keep out sign,
discussing whether the secretary or treasurer would take over in the wake
of the simultaneous death of the co-presidents (who couldn't agree on who
would be president in the first place). In short - its a process discussion
obsessed with trappings and machinery and meta-talk. It exists only to
serve itself. At least the kids in the clubhouse have nothing better to do.
A BoF is just endorsement that its important, when it is not.

WRT clear and non-controversial cases such as AWOL - there already is a
process that has been prepared in contingency in the past and not needed
yet. That seems fine.

WRT less obvious cases - referring them to a committee is not how one
effectively resolves complicated questions. In the case of a multi
stakeholder organization like ours those questions will inevitably be
tinged with market and political forces - its the nature of the beast.
Keeping terms short creates an accountability loop while also allowing the
office holder space to fulfill their duties day to day. A totally
reasonable situation - half the leadership stands for appointment every
year already.

-P



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:18 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 18:44 +0200 Eliot Lear
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:48, Patrick McManus
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> . One is about the sweet spot of recall difficulty - number
> >> of signers, etc... I believe that's an unimportant question -
> >> leadership have short 2 year terms and its not like they
> >> possess nuclear codes.
> >
> >
> > I think this very much depends on your business.  Knowing that
> > the standard can be dinked right up until the IESG, if someone
> > disappears from that process, your feature scheduling goes out
> > the window.  Possibly your release planning as well.  Now some
> > variability has to be allowed for in this process.  Weeks,
> > maybe even small number of months.  Large #s of months or even
> > years is not an acceptable #.
>
> It seem to me that this would apply even more strongly if
> someone on, say, the IESG decided to adopt an obstructionist
> position relative to your ideas, your company, or, noting your
> earlier comment about retaliation, you as an individual.  In
> such situations, the IESG has tools to move ahead in spite of
> that AD, but they have proven in the past to be time-consuming
> and to impede overall progress when the offender is obstinate,
> so trade-offs get made, maybe trade-offs that would be less
> necessary with a more effective recall mechanism.
>
> Personally, I believe that the IETF is in need of a faster and
> lighter-weight mechanism for getting rid of someone who has
> disappeared then relying on the present recall process.
> However, because I've seen little or no evidence that the
> community is ready to deal with a redesign of the recall model,
> or the nomination and selection models more generally, I
> continue to hope that this discussion can be kept focused on the
> particular issues in the petitioning process identified in
> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>
> best,
>    john
>
> >
> > And that would encourage people to do work elsewhere.  And so
> > it's harmful to this organization when someone fails to show
> > up for an extended period of time.
> >
> > Eliot
>
>
>
>
>