At 12:09 PM 11/16/2005, Jari Arkko wrote:
John, Lakshminath, I mostly agree with everything that you wrote and the nature of the recall process. Nevertheless, as the central proposal in John's draft appears to be the inclusion of IESG/IAB in the potential signing members I still fail to see why this is necessary. If the issue is of wide enough relevance and serious, the management surely finds people (privately or publicly) that care enough to sign.
The argument has been around why if anyone needs to be excluded from signing a recall petition. I have made a case to exclude the current nomcom members and liaisons, but can't think of a reason to exclude IAB and IESG members.
John notes correctly that the IAB and IESG members sometimes know quicker than other IETF contributors if one of them is disruptive or ineffective. The proposal contends that the burden on a recall initiator is too high if she/he happens to be an IAB or IESG member. Earlier I was concerned that if the process is secretive, the IAB or IESG members can abuse it, but since recall petitions are to be posted as public notices in the IETF list(s), I am fine with it. As John notes, there is a threat of recall vs. an actual recall, but again such checks on the power of an IESG/IAB member is a good thing, although we are told that the IAB members don't have too many levers to pull :-); that's another discussion, however.
Lakshminath
--Jari
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf