I am not convinced that we need to do any change in this area. First, I think we have higher priority items to worry about. The IETF really needs to spend its process change cycles on things that provide a measureable effect and that has a real impact on timeliness/quality/openess/your favorite criteria. And we've never had a recall so optimizing process for it is premature. Lets wait until we have recalls and then tune the parameters. I do believe that if the IESG or IAB has a problem working together then we should hear about it as soon as possible. But nothing prevents open discussion, including participation of IESG members. If the only people who can be convinced to sign a recall petition can be found in the IESG and IAB, well, maybe we don't have a problem after all. Finally, I'm not sure I am comfortable with the idea that the IESG and IAB (altogether over 20 persons) could all by itself sign a petion and get it processed. This would appear to provide a channel to oppose decisions from the nomcom, for instance. If there's ever an issue that deserves recall-level discussion, lets hear about that, publicly, and get enough people behind it to sign the petition. If you can't get it done, maybe the issue was not all that convincing to people. --Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf