Re: Gaming the System [Was: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev]

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,
At 04:49 AM 20-04-2019, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Pretty much the whole of the IETF consensus process is equally open to such
>gaming because all decisions are taken on the mailing list. It might be that
>gaining positive consensus is not easily gamed, but objecting to progress
>would be easily attacked in this way.

Yes.

>Yet I can only recall two attempts to introduce "sock puppets" to the IETF
>consensus process. Both were spotted early and both resulted in minimal
>impact on the IETF process. So few attempts in such a long period does not
>suggest that this is a major cause for concern.

The IETF has a term to describe such attempts.  I doubt that such an 
attempt would fly under the radar.

>Additionally, the complete absence of recalls of seated and active
>Nomcom-appointed people suggests that either the process remains unlikely to
>be executed, or that the current bar to execution is too high to enable the
>necessary petitions.

Yes.

>I would suggest the same ethos applies in this situation. The IESG is in a
>good position to work with each Nomcom chair to understand the frequency of
>recall petitions and the drain on the community that they cause.
>Furthermore, to obtain a view of the balance between successful recalls and
>petitions that might be judged frivolous. If the level of mendacious recall
>petitions becomes a problem then the IESG could report this to the community
>and steps could be taken to further strengthen the protection.

In my opinion, it would take around six weeks to solve that problem, 
if it is indeed a problem.

One of the reasons to "protect the system" might be because it is 
"informally" viewed as weak by the IESG.  That might explain why the 
IETF's unofficial motto only mentions the second part of the sentence.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy