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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,
At 04:54 PM 24-05-2019, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>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.

Thank you for sharing your opinion openly.

There isn't a "skin in the game" hurdle for 
appeals.  It is trivial to file five frivolous 
appeals and get 15 Area Directors to respond to the appeals.

There is the following sentence in Section 3.1: 
"All signatories must have registered to attend 
and have participated physically or remotely at 
least three out of the previous five IETF 
meetings".  Those 10 remote participants (please 
see above) cannot just sign up  as that would be 
considered as attending a meeting.  If a person 
was participating remotely in a WG session, the 
WG Chair and some of the regular WG participants 
would likely know who the person is.

If the IETF community is uncomfortable with the 
"remote only" signatories, that could be 
addressed by setting a restriction on the number 
of signatories who are "remote only".

>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

Could Alexey, Warren or you please list the 
concerns so that they can be addressed?

>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.

Since Barry sent his email about Nomcom 
eligibility there hasn't been any draft about 
that topic.  There isn't anything which could be picked as base.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy