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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

In line

On 4/23/2019 12:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/22/19 11:32 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>> Instead, I'd like to propose that we move to an expulsion model for 
>> the IAB and IESG where the members of the organizations are able to 
>> remove a member under certain circumstances:  Behavior inconsistent 
>> with a fiduciary (e.g. acting for your company or contracting entity 
>> to the detriment of the standards process); behavior that adversely 
>> affects the standardization process (IESG) or behavior that adversely 
>> affects the general operation of the IAB (e.g. things like 
>> harassment); abandonment of the position or  lack of communication 
>> from the member. 
>
> I definitely think it's worth looking at alternative models for 
> removing IAB/IESG members who misbehave.   However for your proposal:
>
> a) I suspect there's a risk that an IESG would not support expulsion 
> of a member who had clearly discriminated against a participant out of 
> some kind of prejudice (other than technical judgment), because that 
> IESG wished to protect its own.   If nothing else, the perception of 
> such a choice by IESG would harm IETF's reputation and thereby harm 
> its ability to do work.   So I think IESG cannot be its own sole 
> watchdog of its members; there must be the possibility for some other 
> "last resort" means of recalling an AD from outside of IESG.   Perhaps 
> that could be managed as a kind of an appeal rather than initiating a 
> recall petition as is currently envisioned.
>

Good comments overall.  But:

Appeals are generally taken against final decisions rather than just 
hanging there loose to be applied against something that might not 
actually have had a formal appraisal and decision.

WRT to "protect its own" - if there's a problem that has enough 
consensus of a need for resolution, and the IAB or IESG does not take 
action, then you address it  at the next Nomcom cycle and remove not 
only the problem child, but the folks that didn't act. But I'd be 
surprised if we end up with that result.  I don't always get along with 
the leadership and some actions they've taken over the years annoy the 
hell out of me, but for the most part I consider them honorable and 
generally good fiduciaries of the IETF process.


> b) On the flip side, there's also some risk that an IESG would seek to 
> marginalize a lone voice within its ranks that argued for sanity 
> against a widely-accepted madness, and use the expulsion process as a 
> way to silence that individual.   So I don't think IESG should be able 
> to expel one of its members without external scrutiny as to what 
> justified it.   (note that I didn't say _public_ scrutiny.)   In such 
> a case, review by the current nomcom might be appropriate.

There are a few ways of dealing with this -  either have a second body 
confirm the expulsion - or - my preference - make the expulsion 
appealable and use normal appeals process to act as a check and 
balance.  I don't think it's an unsolvable problem.


>
> All of this is tricky to get right though, and we could easily end up 
> with worse (e.g. more easily gamed) than what we have now.

To be blunt - I think the "easy to game" argument is a red herring in 
all its forms, such argument only given some small amount of life based 
on the actual black and white text of the recall process and vivid 
imaginations.  A bigger problem - IMHO - is the ridiculous amount of 
time it would take to process the recall after the petition is 
certified.  I neither think it would be difficult to got 20 signatures 
using the current criteria for something sufficiently serious for a 
recall, nor would the IETF fall for any of the various permutations of 
sock puppets and trolling and DOS attacks we've discussed in this and 
other related threads.


Later, Mike


>
> Keith
>
>