RE: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 04:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 07A923A1172 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F4lwkUJApOGP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9D63A1170 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.98.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 02B4jhZQ003008 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1583901957; x=1583988357; i=@elandsys.com; bh=/y7UsX1EquLxbVy6uifc3mK/fr3dCNWTJ1mAwGPkuPA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ajh0KzWX5/dGiiV53T5SP+c6ADCzM5r3H4INEI2yGkD9DQRKLRWIkcoByrfUjaXdl Lapk26SjyMmxO09RZZmgFpHgCNn6q6rheeD1MHJFGtMOukzjV2hwNk5eRFYq6Xn0za DZwhYf2eQuOGYa5R7t8e59WxUtNcYV3dF5Ptr9vI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200310204458.0af61fc0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:35:39 -0700
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: RE: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR03MB5415B070EB23E5DADFF8227DEEFF0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurpr d03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200310184518.GY18021@localhost> <EB49F5CB-1FD1-4FB1-867B-886233E33B38@nohats.ca> =?utf-8?q?=3CDBBPR03MB5415?= =?utf-8?q?B070EB23E5DADFF8227DEEFF0=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Eprod=2Eout?= =?utf-8?q?look=2Ecom=3E?=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kZS510D7SWNXLYsjcQdkp3Wyjr8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 11 Mar 2020 04:46:02 -0000

Hi Andrew,

[Cc trimmed]

At 02:44 PM 10-03-2020, Andrew Alston wrote:
>So - Why not move straight away and ask for a formal recall 
>process?  Firstly - I've long believed in transparency - hence, if I 
>am going to do something, I am going to do it publicly, and I am 
>going to stand by it - that is in my view absolutely critical in a 
>bottom up organization.  Secondly, invoking a formal recall process 
>against someone is a hell of a thing to do - once started - if 
>recalled - that person has been formally recalled for the rest of 
>his days.  I prefer to give someone the option of saying "I screwed 
>up" and stepping aside before invoking such a process - and that is 
>not to say that there will NOT be a formal recall request coming - 
>in fact - its under heavy consideration for both what happened in 
>this instance and for other reasons that have been raised since that 
>request for resignation went out.
>
>I know that many will go - follow the process - and as I said, I for 
>one, am quite happy to do that, but I believe that giving someone 
>the option to step aside before you institute such process against 
>them is actually the kinder option, and is no less public than a 
>formal recall request would be, since in the spirit of transparency, 
>any such formal request would almost certainly be as public as a 
>request to resign, made so either by IETF process or by the 
>initiators of said process.

The following comments are not about the merits of the request.

Please see Section 2.1 of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03 [1].  The 
argument was made approximately 15 years ago.  In my opinion, that 
point got lost in the various unrelated discussions which occurred afterwards.

The Recall process has never been exercised.  It would be very 
difficult to exercise, more likely due to some safeguards which would 
not have been problematic at the time when the relevant document was written.

One of the reasons for "process" is so that the decision-making is 
not based on a random choice or personal whim.  There is also the 
ability for the persons taking the decision to exercise their own judgement.

The last part in the previous paragraph might be useful to a person 
(Bcc) on an entirely unrelated matter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03