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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

If I might make an observation, and a suggestion ...

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 10:12 Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for this email, Alissa. It's interesting. I presume it means that
> the IESG is unanimous, because it only takes one AD to AD sponsor a draft.
>

If you mean "all of the IESG has discussed this and agreed" on much of
anything, I'd be pleasantly surprised if that happened. The new IESG has
been seated for less than a month, right?

If you mean "all of the ADs have considered AD sponsoring this draft and
decided not to", I'd be surprised, because it usually takes new ADs more
than one or two telechat cycles to focus on much more than document reviews.

But either way, I think at least waiting until the IESG retreat before
using "the IESG" as a collective noun is realistic.

But, beyond that ...

BoFs are very good forums for debating stuff. Good for focussing in on
> requirements. Good for scoping work. Good for establishing a community to
> do the work.
>
> But:
> - why wait until Montreal to discuss this?
> - why use a predominantly face-to-face meeting to discuss an issue that is
> considerably about non-attendance at face-to-face meetings?
> - what more work is needed beyond debating the content of the current
> draft?
>
> Can I suggest:
> - An AD needs to "adopt" this idea. That doesn't mean support it, but it
> does mean facilitation
> - A mailing list venue is needed (either this list or a new specific list)
> - A virtual/interim BoF be held in (say) four weeks from now.
>

That could be a fine plan. It assumes that The S is For Steering.

Another orthogonal Fine Plan could be for an AD to ask the IAB to provide a
BOF Shepherd to help the proponents - which almost certainly means "more
people than just SM" - to produce a BOF request that will result in a
successful BOF, so participants who rarely if ever see each other face to
face don't have to figure that out.

The procedure for this is described at
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/,
unless the IAB has changed that procedure since 2012.

And if this discussion is only about the definition of who is eligible to
sign recall petitions, whether with or without John Klensin's proposal, I
note that https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/ is still an
active list, and seems to be exactly the right place for limited
discussion. If what's wanted is POISED2019, that's another mailing list, of
course, which any AD can approve.

But do the right thing, of course.

Spencer


Why rush? We've lasted this long with the current system, why do a few
> extra months matter?
>
> Well, the answer is that the energy to do the work is there now. Let's use
> that energy to discuss and (if agreed) make changes. Let's not risk anyone
> suggesting that we are deferring discussions in the hope that the issue
> goes away :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 17 April 2019 15:46
> To: S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>
> Cc: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>; IESG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
>
> Hi SM,
>
> > On Apr 5, 2019, at 12:08 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear General Area Director,
> >
> > In March, I sent a message to the IETF discussion list about the recall
> process.  As you are probably aware, there was a lively discussion on the
> subject.  I submitted an I-D [1] about the subject.  There were a comments
> on the I-D and they were addressed in draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-01
> >
> > I am enquiring about whether you, or any other Area Director, would like
> to sponsor the I-D or whether you would like a proposal for a working group
> to look into the draft and other related issues.
>
> I discussed this with the IESG and our recommendation is for you to submit
> a BOF proposal if you’d like to pursue this further. We think these kinds
> of changes to the IETF’s governance structure need the more in-depth
> problem statement discussion and broader review that a chartering process
> and working group would provide.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
> >
> > 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-01
> >
>
>