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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Patrick,

I’ll respond since you addressed this to me, but you replied to John’s message.  I cannot tell if you are saying that there isn’t a problem to be solved or whether you are arguing over its scope.  If you are saying that we have a process that deals with AWOL people, it clearly hasn’t functioned properly in the past.  If you are saying that you are okay dealing with the AWOL problem, but would prefer not expanding to address the more general case, ok.  But your analogy is not appropriate.  Please allow for the possibility that there are those of us have been materially impacted, and who have seen the impact on this organization.  Perhaps you don’t see it because it hasn’t hit the area in which you work.

Eliot


> On 12 Jun 2019, at 00:42, Patrick McManus <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> The reason I made a comment on this topic is because the amount of discussion related to recall struck me as embarrassing.
> 
> I am reminded of kids in a clubhouse, no doubt bearing a keep out sign, discussing whether the secretary or treasurer would take over in the wake of the simultaneous death of the co-presidents (who couldn't agree on who would be president in the first place). In short - its a process discussion obsessed with trappings and machinery and meta-talk. It exists only to serve itself. At least the kids in the clubhouse have nothing better to do. A BoF is just endorsement that its important, when it is not.
> 
> WRT clear and non-controversial cases such as AWOL - there already is a process that has been prepared in contingency in the past and not needed yet. That seems fine.
> 
> WRT less obvious cases - referring them to a committee is not how one effectively resolves complicated questions. In the case of a multi stakeholder organization like ours those questions will inevitably be tinged with market and political forces - its the nature of the beast. Keeping terms short creates an accountability loop while also allowing the office holder space to fulfill their duties day to day. A totally reasonable situation - half the leadership stands for appointment every year already.
> 
> -P
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:18 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 18:44 +0200 Eliot Lear
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:48, Patrick McManus
> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> . One is about the sweet spot of recall difficulty - number
> >> of signers, etc... I believe that's an unimportant question -
> >> leadership have short 2 year terms and its not like they
> >> possess nuclear codes.
> >
> >
> > I think this very much depends on your business.  Knowing that
> > the standard can be dinked right up until the IESG, if someone
> > disappears from that process, your feature scheduling goes out
> > the window.  Possibly your release planning as well.  Now some
> > variability has to be allowed for in this process.  Weeks,
> > maybe even small number of months.  Large #s of months or even
> > years is not an acceptable #.
> 
> It seem to me that this would apply even more strongly if
> someone on, say, the IESG decided to adopt an obstructionist
> position relative to your ideas, your company, or, noting your
> earlier comment about retaliation, you as an individual.  In
> such situations, the IESG has tools to move ahead in spite of
> that AD, but they have proven in the past to be time-consuming
> and to impede overall progress when the offender is obstinate,
> so trade-offs get made, maybe trade-offs that would be less
> necessary with a more effective recall mechanism.
> 
> Personally, I believe that the IETF is in need of a faster and
> lighter-weight mechanism for getting rid of someone who has
> disappeared then relying on the present recall process.
> However, because I've seen little or no evidence that the
> community is ready to deal with a redesign of the recall model,
> or the nomination and selection models more generally, I
> continue to hope that this discussion can be kept focused on the
> particular issues in the petitioning process identified in
> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
> 
> best,
>    john
> 
> >
> > And that would encourage people to do work elsewhere.  And so
> > it's harmful to this organization when someone fails to show
> > up for an extended period of time.
> >
> > Eliot
> 
> 
> 
>