Re: Just so I'm clear

mrex@sap.com (Martin Rex) Wed, 24 October 2012 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B04D1F0C6E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+o9rvbZ4xiG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de (smtpde02.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773581F0419 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde02.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id q9ONPpXk019074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:25:51 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Re: Just so I'm clear
In-Reply-To: <50876D39.20502@dougbarton.us>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:25:50 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-Id: <20121024232550.C14861A2F3@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
From: mrex@sap.com
X-SAP: out
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:25:56 -0000

Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> 
>> Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
>> designed to be hard to use,
> 
> While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
> recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
> and should not be undertaken lightly.

There is a good reason why procedures for recalling someone from
a position in a decision-making body with elected members is much
harder than electing the person into that body.

Sometimes, members are elected by only a small majority over competitors,
and they even may have been "weak supporting" votes, and those may even
be known to each member.  Now it happens that those decision bodies
have to occasionally make contentious or unpopular, but necessary
and hopefully rational and mostly unbiased decisions,

What you want to avoid is those members with "weak" votes to worry
about mainly pleasing one or a few very specific "voters" during
those decisions, that could otherwise have them recalled by just
those persons not voting for them again in the recall procedure.


On a different issue:  The "legal" procedure if someone does not
perform his agreed duties and falls into total inactivity would
be (German legalese "(Ver)säumnisurteil"), which Wikipedia maps to
this english term:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment


-Martin