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

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

Brian,

(speaking strictly as an individual, independent of being a
listed co-author of the document)

--On Thursday, April 18, 2019 08:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> It would certainly be ironic if a proposal to alleviate some
> of the disadvantages of remote participation couldn't be be
> discussed by remote participants in multiple time zones.

Indeed.

> With all due respect, etc. etc., I've always understood that
> discussion by email was intended to alleviate exactly that
> problem, and this list *is* the IETF plenary. So exactly who
> has been disenfranchised from this discussion who would be
> enfranchised by a physical or virtual BOF?

Agreed.  My suggestion (and version of Aaron's and Adrian's
suggestions) was only that, if the IESG is going to insist that
the document as written requires a BOF (and, if I understand
Alissa's note correctly, a WG-forming one and a WG), then it
would be better to do the BOF virtually rather than physically,
precisely because of the nature of the problem.  

Personally, I see the scope of the document as so narrow as to
make a BOF, rather than a healthy discussion on this list (much
of which has already occurred) followed by the IETF Last Call,
as being completely unnecessary.  If the problem the IESG sees
is that, by addressing two issues with eligibility to petition
for a recall, the document's scope is too broad, I suggest we
remove the sections that would allow nomcom-appointed incumbents
to sign such petitions and view that as a separate problem.

best,
   john

> On 18-Apr-19 06:56, John C Klensin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> --On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 13:22 -0400 Aaron Falk
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 11:10, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Can I suggest:
>>>> ...
>>>> - A virtual/interim BoF be held in (say) four weeks from
>>>> now.
>>> 
>>> What a cool and (now that you've stated it) obvious idea!
>>> Has it been done before?
>> 
>> Let me take Adrian's suggestion a step further: since the
>> primary issue the draft is trying to address is associated
>> with remote participants, perhaps we could schedule two or
>> three virtual BOF sessions to make participation from
>> different timezones convenient?
>> 
>> In addition...
>> 
>> --On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:46 -0400 Alissa Cooper
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> With the disclaimer that, while I'm somewhat implicated in the
>> document, I've turned over the decision-making to SM, part of
>> the intent was to keep the draft very narrowly focused rather
>> than opening up the range of possible changes to the IETF's
>> governance structures that the above seems to imply and that
>> would almost certainly require another iteration on the
>> POISED/ POISSON work that built the foundation of those
>> processes.  I persuaded him to include the change to allow
>> IESG/ IAB members to initiate recalls because that had come
>> up years ago but there seemed to be insufficient energy at
>> the time to carry it forward.  If the conclusion from the
>> IESG's informal discussion is that including that change
>> broadens the scope from making an adjustment to increase the
>> ability of mostly-remote participants to ensure fair
>> treatment to changes requiring broader review, then I would
>> recommend removing that change and narrowing the focus of the
>> document.   
>> 
>> Conversely, if the IESG has concluded that a more general
>> review of procedures is needed (nearly 20 years after what I
>> think was the last such review in POISSON), then let's try to
>> solicit proposals for such a WG and its scope and figure out
>> whether that actually needs a BOF.
>> 
>> best,
>>    john
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>