Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi SM,

> On May 18, 2019, at 8:33 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear IETF Chair,
> 
> A few months ago, I submitted a short draft about the revision of the recall initiation model [1].  Last month, the recommendation of the IESG was to submit a BOF proposal [2].  I had an email exchange with one of the Area Directors about the request for an IAB shepherd.  If I am not mistaken, an IAB shepherd can provide a review of architectural consistency and integrity.  Does the short draft require that type of review?

I am not talking for the whole IESG but I will tell you my opinion as a sitting IESG member on why I did not want to AD sponsor this draft in its current condition. I think the proposal in the draft sets the bar too low specifically on the Section 2.2 front. One of the things that has kept the recall petitions rare is that that the people who initiate the petition need to have some accountability for doing so (I would call this “skin in the game” [0] but it does not translate well across cultures). Otherwise there will be no bar to filing frivolous petitions. This brings me to the elephant in the room. It is fairly trivial for someone to sign up 10 remote participant identities to initiate a recall petition without incurring much effort, for the *sole purpose* of starting a recall petition. I would like to see some suggestions as to how we can ensure that this would not happen. 

> 
> The "we think" [2] from the IESG is expressed in one sentence.  Would it be possible for the IESG to explain its understanding of the in-depth problem statement so that there could be a discussion?

There were some concerns that were brought up during the discussion on the [e-mail] list and I would like to see a proposal (or a revision) to resolve them. One of the other things that came up during the discussion was that some of us felt that a path to Nomcom eligibility for remote participants was a much better way of preventing disenfranchisement of remote participants. I think Barry stated this explicitly in one of his emails. Given that there are multiple potential way to go about achieving the goals, I do not see that harm in having further discussion to see what we should pick as a base.

Thanks
Suresh

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_(phrase)