Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 18:43 -0500 Nico Williams
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:28:19PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> At 02:11 PM 24-04-2019, Nico Williams wrote:
>> > What's the problem with holding a BoF?
>> 
>> It doesn't make sense to ask a person who lacks extensive
>> travel resources to fly to Canada to hold a BoF about a short
>> draft.
> 
> You could participate remotely.
> 
> Seriously, please stop suggesting that your I-D not getting
> sponsored is a moral or ethical failure on the part of the
> ADs.  You've been given a way forward that fits our
> publication process.
> 
> We have a process for publication of Standards-Track and BCP
> RFCs.  That process involves an optional BoF, a WG Last Call,
> definitely IETF Last Call, and IESG review.  It would be
> strange to skip the BoF and the WG LC steps, and it would be
> stranger still to have an IETF LC on a draft that has had this
> much discussion and no other forum for discussing it.
> 
> An AD sponsoring this I-D as it is might well be grounds for a
> recall petition!  :^/

Nico,

Let me note two bits of history and then suggest that you (and
others who have responded to the idea of reviewing and
potentially approving this document by an Individual Submission
process with the sort of righteous outrage that I read into your
last comment/jest above) tone it down a bit. 

(1) Document processing history... 

RFC 8318 was processed and approved as an Individual Submission
(no BOF, no WG).  It was a rather small, fine-tuning, change,
but some of us believe that the changes suggested by
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev are no larger.  YMMD about that,
however...

RFC 7776, which laid out a whole new policy area and, in the
process, slightly updated the recall procedures of RFC 7437, was
discussed and approved as an Individual Submission (no WG).  I
find it hard to believe that the implications of the present I-D
are broader than the implications of the anti-harassment policy
and procedures.  But, again, YMMD.

RFC 7437, which completely replaced the prior specifications of
the nominating and recall processes, was processed and approved
as an Individual Submission (no WG and, as far as I can remember
or tell from the tracker, no BOF).   It would be very hard to
argue that such a complete replacement, "roll-up", document has
less sweeping effect or risk of inadvertent changes than the
present I-D.

RFC 6859, a clarification about nomcom eligibility, was
processed as an Individual Submission.   Whether it is a more or
less significant change than the one now proposed depends on
whether one thinks it actually changed anything versus
reinforcing an interpretation of prior documents that was
generally accepted, but the point remains: no WG and, AFAICT, no
BOF.

We need to go all the way back to RFC 3777 (six years ago) to
find a document related to the recall process that actually came
out of a WG.

It seems to me that, unless you (or others) are ready to claim
that all of the documents listed above other than 3777 are not
legitimate, arguing that this I-D must go through a WG and WG
Last Call (with or without a BOF) prior to IETF Last Call as a
matter of our normal procedure with no other path permitted, is,
to use your term, "strange".   There is, of course, an IETF Last
Call and IETF review inherent in the AD-sponsored Individual
Submission process: no one has proposed to eliminate or bypass
either of those steps.

(2) Moral or ethical failures...

I don't believe anyone has explicitly made either of those
claims.  _However_, one effect of what the I-D proposes is to
increase the fraction of the IETF participant community who can
participate in directly holding IESG members accountable through
the _only_ mechanism now available to the community (other than,
e.g., throwing of ripe fruit during plenaries, an activity we
haven't figured out how to support over Meetecho).   Any time,
in any organization, that a leadership body requires
otherwise-optional procedures that put obstacles in the way of
rapid processing and approval of a proposal that would cause
additional accountability (or accountability to a broader
population) for that body, it is reasonable to raise the
question of whether the risk of increased accountability is part
of the motivation for the requirement.  It is also appropriate
for the leadership body itself to carefully examine its own
motives.  That is not to suggest that the decision to require
additional procedures is inherently wrong: on a case-by-case
basis, it may be exactly right.  However, it is not an accident
that there are well-established metaphors in many cultures for
situations in which a body is asked to consider increasing some
other group's control over it -- e.g., "asking turkeys to vote
for Thanksgiving" (or Christmas) or "allowing the foxes to take
charge of the henhouse" -- it seems to me entirely appropriate
to ask questions about motives rather than casting aspersions on
those who do so.

So, again, whether this proposal actually needs a WG-forming
BOF, AD or IESG approval or a WG, etc., is something we can
continue to debate (much as I'd rather be discussing substance).
And people can raise (again, btw) and debate (although I'd much
rather see a different thread and a draft first and believe the
issue is completely separate from the ones covered by the I-D)
such topics as whether the IESG and IAB should be able to remove
their own members.   But please let's cut back on the hyperbole,
claims for procedural requirements that have never existed, and
assertions (even if by implication) that some people have
accused others of being morally or ethically defective.

best,
   john