At 08:29 AM 11/16/2005, Jari Arkko wrote:
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.
As to whether this is urgent is a good question. But, the change seems straightforward enough that we can accommodate it as part of "regular business."
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.
The confirmation process takes care of this already. The IAB doesn't have to accept the slate of IESG nominations the nomcom sends to them, and so on.
The IESG and IAB have something to lose, if you think about it, if they go about launching spurious recall petitions. Their names will be published along with the petition and if the recall committee comes back saying there is no need to recall, then people will take a hard look at the petitioners. That's a good deterrent, I think.
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.
Sometimes, a petition needs to be put together without starting discussion on it already, so it makes sense to have some secrecy while the signatures are collected. In that process, if the initiators find out that there aren't really 20 eligible people to sign, then they know perhaps they need to look inwards to handle the issue at hand ;-). I'd like to think that some recall drives have started and probably stopped at some point -- I am not sure healthy is the right word, but that seems to fit in the course of IETF operations.
regards, Lakshminath
--Jari
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf