Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodies removing their own membership

[Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, John C Klensin wrote:

> Hi.  I've been thinking about the idea of the I* bodies being
> able to remove one of their own members and how to combine that
> with adequate safeguards.  Let me make a specific suggestion to
> see if it gets enough traction for me to draft some text that
> could be dropped into the "equity" I-D.
...
> that the person should be removed.  Or, perhaps even more
> effectively, requiring each I* member who was going to vote
> "yes" to sign a letter of resignation, creating a vacancy
> immediately and taking effect as soon as a replacement could be
> seated if the recall committee did not remove the person in
> question.   "You want to fire an I* member, you put your
> position on the line if the recall committee disagrees" has a
> certain charm.  But I'm not yet persuaded that either would be a
> good idea.

This sounds remarkably similar to the idea in:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-klensin-chair-empowerment-00

which empowered the IETF chair to initiate a "him or me" process.  It 
has the advantage that if the recall committee disagrees, it only 
displaces one person (the IETF chair), not half of the I*.  As this 
document observes in section 5: "If different IESG members were able 
to use it on each other, there is too much risk of abuse or repeated 
invocations".

-- Sam