Interesting... To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little heavy-handed to have to instigate a recall procedure if the IAD (or IAOC) seem not to have heard the *community's* requirements for meeting location.
So, (how) can we make the distinction without creating a decision tree of epic proportions?
Just say that they are to consult the IETF when they do not feel sure about the "best needs of the IETF". A recall procedure would probably not be called the first time, even if the issue is important (preserving stability), but can be called even on a small issue if they repeatedly do not consult the IETF when a disagreement/uncertainity is obvious.
So, the recall procedure is not on a possibly disputed case - the dispute would harm the whole IETF - but on a repeated Management poor practice where accumulated displeasure will probably make the case less disputed. It also permits IETF to vote warnings.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf