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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 6/11/2019 11:41 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I remain concerned about broad statements opening up discussions
> of the entire recall model (more about that in a note I have
> written but hope I don't have to send), but perhaps something
> like the above would respond to the need that others seem to be
> feeling without significantly opening that door.

And I'd suggest that if we're going to expend any energy on this, we 
deal with the actual problems with the recall process rather than the 
deck chair counting.

Specifically, as currently described it's going to be something like a 
2-3 month process to start the recall, select the chair, form the 
committee, get them up to speed on the requirements for the position and 
reasonable reasons for recall, investigate the problem and finally have 
a vote.   That's a lot of time to leave a potential recallee in limbo 
and is probably not good for the IETF collaborative model.

And unlike the formation of the Nomcom and selection of the Nomcom 
chair, having the ISOC chair select the recall chair has a number of 
downsides including the possibility of the perception of selecting a 
chair for a desired result.


So instead of restating SM's conclusion as the goal of the BOF maybe use 
something like:

__________________________________

a) Evaluate the current recall model for changes;  whether other 
processes may be more appropriate for perceived needs; and whether the 
recall process should remain part of the management process for IETF 
leadership.

b) In light of (a) evaluate and possibly revise the initiation model for 
the recall process including the possibility of revising or supplanting 
the current petition based model; evaluate and possibly revise the model 
for selection of the recall committee and chair; evaluate and possibly 
revise the deliberation model for the recall committee and the rights of 
the proposed recallee during the process.

c) In light of the addition of the Ombudsman process, evaluate how the 
Ombudsman process should interact if at all with the recall process; for 
example should the Obudsteam be used to investigate charged wrong-doing 
asserted by a recall petition?

The BOF will report out one [or more] of the following:

a) Consensus is that no changes are necessary at this time.

b) We've come to consensus on the following changes:   {}  and we've 
been unable to come to consensus on the following topics {}.  These 
represent all of the topics considered by the group.  A draft covering 
the consensus items shall be forthcoming.

c) We've been unable to come to consensus, however the group has 
determined - through consensus - that there's enough interest to form a 
WG to address these topics.  We have X people who have agreed to 
participate actively. The charter is attached.

d) We've been unable to come to consensus and there is no consensus that 
further deliberation at this time will result in progress.

_____________________________________________

Or something like this.   As I asked earlier - do we actually have 10 or 
20 people who think they want to spend some time working this process or 
are we being DOS'd on a process question that few if any really care about?

We as the IETF have a hard problem of saying "no" at times - for WG 
creation, for the publication of limited impact documents, etc.  It may 
be time as a group to thank SM for his efforts and decline to proceed.

Later, Mike