I agree with this analysis. Some additional comments below... --On Wednesday, 16 November, 2005 10:04 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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." It is useful to do it now for one additional reason and that is precisely because, at least to the best of my knowledge, no recall actions are pending or in process. We don't want to be rethinking these sorts of things at a time when doing so raises "who are we trying to get" questions. >> 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. Well, if this argument is extended backward, we wouldn't have the "20 signature" rule at all, but a "1 signature, signed by 'anyone'" rule. Perhaps that would be better, perhaps worse. I have been thinking that "one" is easier to get than ten or 20, but I find Harald's "safety and sanity in numbers" reasoning fairly persuasive. But the point is that we have already done some tuning/ process optimization in the absence of experience; adjusting that process on the same basis seems plausible. >> 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. Think about it this way. Recalls are a nasty, horrible, very burdensome, and disruptive mechanism. That is true whether the petition threshold is one signature or two dozen. At the same time, they are the only mechanism we have. As has been pointed out at least once on-list, indirectly by Lakshminath below, and several times in private notes, one of the values of a recall effort that starts is that it lays the foundation for a completely unambiguous "this is serious not just random whining; you need to either clean up your act, resign, or this petition goes to the ISOC President and all the dirty laundry gets hung out in public" conversation. That isn't attractive either, but it is much better for the community than an actual recall. And, for that purpose, a petition with several signatures, with people from both within and outside the relevant body, is far more persuasive about the reality of serious discontent than one person whining. >> 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. But the IESG and IAB don't get to approve nomcom selections to the IESG and IAB, respectively. But think about this: If the IESG and IAB feel strongly enough that someone is a bad actor that they can get majorities of both bodies, or most of one and a few from the other, to sign a petition to initiate a very nasty process that would be almost certain to result in a low-performance slot while the process plays itself out, maybe the odds that the nomcom has made a mistake are high enough that the community deserves the opportunity to do some second-guessing. Remember how the appeals process works: the ISOC President needs to get a petition. The secretariat needs to confirm the signatures, which probably doesn't happen overnight. The ISOC President appoints a recall committee chair. We've never been through that process, but I'd assume, based on experience with Nomcom chairs, that the ISOC President would do some consultation and that the first person selected might say "no". Figure that, by the time we get signatures verified and a chair appointed, it is a couple of weeks after the petition submission, and that is pretty optimistic. Then, just like the nomcom, the Chair asks for volunteers from the nomcom-eligible pool, presumably less the sitting nomcom members (RFC 3777 is not clear about that, and should probably be fixed). The selection process then requires a 30 day volunteer period, followed by a one-week waiting period, followed by selection, followed by a one-week challenge period. Note that we are now at least eight weeks post-petition and the recall committee hasn't met yet, much less done anything. But, unless the "one month to get organized" of RFC 3777, Section 4.18, is applied to the recall committee, it is at least ready to start work. Now assume that the recall committee can do its job in a couple of weeks (which I would consider a miracle) and concludes that the person should be removed. Circa ten weeks out, the Nomcom Chair convenes the Nomcom (most of whose members may believe that they were finished for the year) and starts the process of soliciting candidate nominations, evaluating them, interviewing would-be candidates and listening to the community, etc. Once they have a nominee, the nomination has to go through the conformation process. My guess is that it would be a minimum of five or six _months_ between initiation of a petition and the time we have a replacement person in place. During the first half (or so) of that time, we've got someone in place who is probably mad at everyone and possibly continuing to do whatever got him or her in trouble in the first place only more so. During the second half, we have a vacancy. I suggest that anyone who is willing to initiate a process like that would need to be quite sure that things are serious enough to justify it, either in terms of serious bad behavior or in terms of needing to establish a principle. With 20 (or even ten) signatures required, there need to be a lot of such people. Within the IESG or IAB, where there is a keen understanding of the implications of operating short-handed for many months, the threshold is even higher. And, as Lakshminath points out, anyone signing these things puts their own credibility and quality of judgment out for evaluation by the community, for better or worse. > 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. Agreed. See above. >... regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf