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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 11 June 2019 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 14B5A120112 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 hRiQq_Ke7Jbi for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CEB512011F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id o13so11265912lji.5 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q4N50os/pm/clZIqIIXFDs1nVEg4wHJBoPpYfo2Rm10=; b=eyLNtCLJa6/pNIvt+MuMeZtv1Cw/Qdkg1+qbl97SGMf6cYhPnXhjmKarEzU82cqOcW pUx0hsLII5D5Y86pvMMpP7kot4hypbeYl6uueBe4Xn3/WpASjnMchFEHwYbnM7aPyK9F Jm2ut1F0M/s+zhZg0Wr0kD/xO/M9rxC70gJsMMnzUAHLv5Cgly4zuivShjxHoFYLi7RM axnpVgSvl14MVrA4dZxQvssh7acaW9I6YINGAYrB5axeIhua0LziQzvFDYvljHtR3P6q 8mdW03Fru9o8LmyL43kal4naGA7iLwINYJuzt6Ij0ELJrijQKDe3J5r1V6Ws0l6QDa2G 6HQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q4N50os/pm/clZIqIIXFDs1nVEg4wHJBoPpYfo2Rm10=; b=dTyFVrx5WD0Ii+2BLAgy2XOCn/9gBITRhMfFvGfzmouhRS9SvvFCDfcd7LF1rpQmze W+Krx2SZ9BZEkwfa4rRc4fuKit2TCtcKc/vVl/NZUfWL4oIN09L/KkoPGe/9aaL6cnv8 OaoC76uCivNde/Ov6/tBt2Vd4cUDL3Js7+VE9kueljk5UYr+EyFh7nX+tMjZ6U878BAK 5DSUOkunnoewLXKbcXDpyuaHl6qWfRbZo7xtBpN/CYexB2RrG6oMYccqk2bH71KsV/p8 YO487JXofJTML9fjFAanY2XMjpf4ALR/PDAOG3RlEoX59b9DW512n7LoUB1tW+RNM2sP /cLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWS/ByYEjm17drTcPz+ETjmxI+ij2v8FeqJAaob2CIlzGQSzgb/ GyLWzz+Rx9JHTrNmA08g9b7uCyZMxqPJv82TjVsRFw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwvYJAUVoQSlkZp0s6GL8mzoCahFF93EzHVDXftpLD+QGEySpMRaXI4HOuXU9lBd7xGBAT8U5Joo93/iBej7bg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:858b:: with SMTP id b11mr5017366lji.159.1560253090432; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190601204707.0bf89070@elandnews.com> <D58B591C-9140-4273-AA11-59E2EBD101FE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190611033500.0c619e48@elandnews.com> <065101d52047$d35ea620$7a1bf260$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <065101d52047$d35ea620$7a1bf260$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:37:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOX3PURx57jE1poyBt-VxdbVbcFp-E+eocPMH6fsBq6qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000371cae058b0abb70"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/sCos13aMcqd_NzjuPRrX0sM06qw>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:38:15 -0000

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?

-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
>