A few deltas to 5.1

[Carl Malamud <[e-mail]>]

I'm currently working on distilling the draft document into a series of
bullets, suitable for discussion in the working group meeting and for
possible reworking into a draft RFC.  Identifying each element of the
plan in terse language will make it easier for us to methodically walk
through the proposed structure and identify possible points of contention.

There are a few items which seem necessary to change from draft 5.1  These
items will (of course) be brought up in the working group meeting, but I'd
thought I'd flag a few of them:

o   It seems that the technical liason function should be moved out
    from the Process Board and moved over to the Technical Board.

o   The Editor position should probably be appointed by the Process
    Board and not the ISOC Trustees.

o   Both the Editor and the Architect need some teeth.  I'd like to
    suggest that either of these two positions can force a hearing by
    the Process or Technical Boards on an issue.  They can't veto, but
    they can get something on the table.

o   We need to spell out how decisions go to the Process Board.  I would
    suggest that the Process Board can flag any decision, the Architect or
    the Editor can force a hearing, or the membership with a suitable number
    of signatures (50?) can force a hearing.  This is an item to discuss
    in the working group meeting.

o   There may be a need for a recall procedure for a member.  I personally
    think terms of limited duration solve the problem, but it is still
    possible that things go awry.  I would suggest that a large number
    of signatures (150?) would force a hearing and decision from the
    the next board up.  There needs to be firm criteria on what constitutes
    a recallable offense and I suggest we take our language from the
    grounds for impeachment in other bodies (e.g., gross deriliction of duty)
    and the leave the interpretation to a case-by-case basis.  I do *NOT*
    want to apply these conditions to history as that will not serve a
    useful purpose.

There are a variety of other suggestions still on the table and I don't
want to suggest that those are not important.  I hope to have my bulletized
version of the draft ready for distribution on Monday.

Carl