IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 28 October 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 540B0120098 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 uaFahqoQdQ7H for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2649120073 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBEF3897C; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0CC3BF0; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:08:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Eliot Lear' <lear@cisco.com>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <c8f4c979-79c1-d6a6-0575-ed5c76c99076@gmail.com>
References: <00c801d58a9a$53693c60$fa3bb520$@olddog.co.uk> <CB806045-0E5E-4445-A377-7CD547B9DD90@cisco.com> <010a01d58ac1$c0ab2320$42016960$@olddog.co.uk> <dc3bf13f-0178-8e4c-6680-ae3258ac1a9b@gmail.com> <017b01d58b1f$37766250$a66326f0$@olddog.co.uk> <3f4c4ba0-9737-8fa8-6207-a239f1084f14@gmail.com> <23383.1572203091@localhost> <c8f4c979-79c1-d6a6-0575-ed5c76c99076@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:08:47 -0400
Message-ID: <29326.1572275327@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/oAOIolbKW9KbupRvSVO5LhyaNA8>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:08:49 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > The
    >> alternative would be some complex criteria that petitioners must >
    >> have been subscribed to N mailing lists for M months, or co-authored
    >> at > least X drafts, or something like that. But that quickly becomes
    >> a > bureaucratic nightmare. So I'd be more inclined to go with
    >> Adrian's > idea, with maybe 1/3 of petitioners needing to be
    >> Nomcom-eligible.
    >>
    >> Doesn't this break if we later change nomcom-eligible to include
    >> remote-only participants?

    > The two discussions may not be entirely separable.

    >> (I don't think that the complex criteria need to be bureaucratic. It's
    >> just a few lines of python)

    > Well, there are things like people whose email address changes but yes,
    > it's not really the mechanics of the criteria - just the complexity for
    > people to understand. The current rule is at least fairly simple.

The secretariat deals with this already for on-site attendees.
If we could demand that people have a datatracker login, then they
effectively do the email change themselves.  I believe that the registration
system is going towards being linked to the DT login.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email