--On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:11 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> On 10/26/12 4:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> I'm using "expulsion" here the way its used in the US >>> political system - a legislative body may choose to expel >>> one of its members for various reasons. I propose that we >>> define such a mechanism for the IETF bodies. >>> >> >> Why should bodies have this right? > I'm not saying they should - but that seems to be what Bob et > al are asking for. Doing it this way means you don't have to > reach to questions of what constitutes an "absence" or > "abandonment" - subjective judgements. > > If someone pisses his fellow members off sufficiently that > they can't work with him/her for whatever reason you have this. > > And it's still subject to veto by the confirming body, so the > expulsion reasons will have to be pretty egregious to get > through two votes of 2/3. Mike, This is exactly the sort of path I don't want to go down, at least without a lot of consideration of its possible implications. Remember that the community has refused to even let IAB or IAOC members sign/endorse a recall petition against one of their own number and that process provides far better checks against abuses or personality problems than any "expel member" plan, even with a requirement for confirming body signoff. It is possible for someone to be in a tiny minority (perhaps of one) in those bodies, thoroughly irritate everyone else about positions, and still be acting in the best interests of the community, maybe even reflecting community consensus. Having watched a number of IABs from the inside, I wouldn't count on them, and much less on the ISOC BoT, to say "no" to an internal membership management request from the IESG or IAB respectively. There have been exceptional years, but the general instinct in matters that are really internal to how the other body functions is to defer to that body on the grounds that they know what they need. In principle, I have no problem with setting up a list of repeated/ long-term non-feasance, non-appearance, or non-responsiveness conditions that are treated as equivalent to a more formal resignation unless the body of which that person is a member votes to waive the rule (i.e., not accept the resignation). I actually think that would be completely reasonable and that we probably should have established such principles years ago even though I'd expect a lot of quibbling about setting the thresholds for "repeated/ long-term". But I believe we should not design things around this particular case or create the perception that we are doing so by changing processes while the case is still open. Indeed, I think fairness dictates that people should know about such rules and their implications at the time they accept nomination for a position -- it becomes part of what they are signing up for -- rather than applying such a rule to today's incumbents. best, john