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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:04 AM Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 9:59, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> > On 25 Oct 2019, at 16:42, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian and Eliot (and anyone else who shares similar concerns):
> >>
> >> I did not see either of you address Adrian's proposed mitigation:
> >> Would requiring some number of physical participants to also sign the
> >> petition allay your concerns? If so, what would that number be? If
> >> not, why not?
> >
> >
> > Yes.  Adrian is offering a an approximation method, which may limit
> > access initially to some in favor of simplicity.  I think two meetings
> > is sufficient.  Is it two meetings EVER or two out of the last N?
> > Dunno.
>
> Eliot, you misunderstood my question and Adrian's original mitigation
> proposal:
>
> Stick with SM's original proposal.
>
> Add the requirement that there must be X people on the petition who
> meets the current rules (attended 3/5 physical meetings).
>
> Would that allay your concern?
>

I can't speak for Eliot, but what you're saying would not allay my
concerns.  Note the "if and only if" in my earlier mail -- if people have
no skin in the game, they should get no say, not even as filler on a form.

Again, we need some guiding principle / problem statement here, not just
negotiating details.

--Richard



>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>