[Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all.

I am serving as the responsible AD for a virtual meeting (via WebEx)
and ongoing work to address what's been discussed on this list (the
"eligibility" list).  See below for the problem statement that will
drive the virtual meeting, and let's see where we get from there.
This meeting will serve to progress the work that's started on this
list -- we expect that to be continued on the list and we will have
further virtual meetings if the participants think that will best help
keep things progressing.  This is a start, not a conclusion.

I want to have an experienced co-chair and a co-chair from among the
remote participants to handle this.  I'd like to find people who could
see the work through if it should form a working group, but for now
I'm looking for chairs for the virtual meeting and short-term
follow-up.

Pete Resnick has agreed to be the experienced co-chair.  I'd like to
avoid having as chairs those who have been (and want to be) very
active in the discussion.  If others of you -- remote participants who
want to see this work be done but don't intend to be major
contributors -- would like to volunteer as co-chairs with Pete, please
let me know off list.  Ideally you will be interested in learning how
to lead consensus building in an IETF group, and would want to
continue your participation beyond this limited work.

The rules for virtual meetings require that we give two weeks' notice
of the meeting time, but I'd like to do closer to four weeks, so we
need to nail down a date very soon.  It's going to be challenging to
find a time of day that works for enough of us, and I'll have to ask
people to be very flexible about times, realizing that *someone* is
likely to have to participate at a pretty awful hour, local time.

I'd like to get feedback on this plan in the next few days, and then
put out a doodle around the end of the week to try to pick a day and
time.  If you intend to participate, please post to this thread your
intent and your time zone (as "UTC-4", "UTC+1", and so on, relative to
UTC).

I think we do need to decide, as a group, whether the limited update
to the recall process is important enough to stand on its own... or
whether it makes more sense to address the broader issue of
enfranchising remote participants, and to update the recall process as
part of that.  There will certainly be time in the virtual meeting to
have that discussion.

Barry

================================
Problem statement

The current description of the process for initiating petitions for
recalls for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 (updated
by draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis, in the RFC Editor queue).  That
process needs updates.

The scope of this work includes the following 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:

- Remote participants are not eligible to seek redress through the
recall process.

- Members of bodies appointed by the NomCom are also not eligible, and
this restricts the timely initiation of a recall petition.

- The required number of signatories sets a very high barrier to
initiate a recall petition.


The virtual meeting

The purpose of virtual meeting is to examine the above-mentioned
issues and determine, for each, whether there is sufficient interest,
agreement, and importance to continue work on that item, and, if so,
how to best organize that work.  A possible starting point for the
work is draft-moonesamy-recall-rev.

This is all part of a larger set of discussions surrounding both the
recall process and the eligibility of remote participants to be voting
members of the NomCom.  In order to keep the work bounded, for the
purpose of this meeting these larger discussions are secondary: they
will be discussed, but we should try to maintain a tactical focus.
================================