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

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:37, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> H/mm..  These don't seem like "issues" so much as restatements of the
> solution SM's draft proposes.
>
> To take a specific one, what issue is addressed by reducing the number of
> people required to sign the petition?
>
>
> Fewer people would have to set themselves up as targets for retribution;
> the pool of people able to serve on the recall committee is marginally
> increased.
>

That's helpful, but I think it also suggests that the problem statement
that SM has written is not really right: for instance, we could solve the
problem of people being targets of retribution by having the signers be
secret [0].. And we could address the pool issue by letting them serve on
the committee.

OTOH, it seems to me that the purpose of these requirements is to have a
certain level of accountability for the people requesting the recall and to
have a certain minimum level of support. So, is it clear that we actually
want to relax those objectives?

in any case, I think this exchange suggests that the first thing that's
needed is a problem statement that's decoupled from the solutions being
proposed.

-Ekr

[0] I'm aware that there are challenges here in verifying eligibility. I
believe there are solutions here, though they are too small to be contained
in this message.

Eliot
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:22 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's nice. I like the clarity.
>>
>> I also like that the worms are kept firmly in their cans. It is without
>> doubt that a hundred other issues concerning the recall process could be
>> aired, and I am certain that many people have different hot issues. But I
>> firmly believe that addressing a few at a time is the best (only!) way to
>> make progress.
>>
>> If it turns out that there is support for resolving any of these three
>> issues, they can be quickly picked off and we can move on to other issues
>> if
>> there is interest. If there is no support for addressing these three
>> concerns, then they can be put to one side and work can start on other
>> issues if there is interest.
>>
>> For my part, I think that all three issues should be addressed, and I
>> think
>> that the approaches suggested in SM's draft are a good starting point for
>> discussion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eligibility-discuss <eligibility-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> On
>> Behalf
>> Of S Moonesamy
>> Sent: 11 June 2019 11:45
>> To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>;
>> eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net
>> >;
>> Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
>> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for
>> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>>
>> Hi Suresh,
>>
>> Please see a revised version of the BOF proposal to address your comments:
>>
>> Problem statement
>>
>>       The current description of the process for initiating petitions
>> for recalls
>>       for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 and is
>> being updated in
>>       draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis.  The scope of this work addresses only
>> three
>>       specific issues with the petition process; other parts of the
>> recall model
>>       and other ways of removing Nomcom-appointees are explicitly out of
>> scope.
>>
>>       The three issues are:
>>
>>       - Ineligibility of remote participants to seek redress through the
>>         recall process;
>>
>>       - Reducing the number of signatories for a recall petition;
>>
>>       - Ineligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom
>>         Appointees to sign a recall petition.
>>
>> The purpose of the BOF is to examine the above-mentioned issues and
>> determine,
>> for each, whether it is sufficient interest and importance.
>> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>> is a possible starting point for the effort.
>>
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
>>
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>>
>> --
>> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
>> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>
>
>