--On Friday, October 26, 2012 12:25 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > I'm pretty much going to object to any condition based model > that anyone proposes, because we're really bad at a) figuring > out the complete list of all possible conditions that could > ever happen, b) writing conditions that can be objectively > evaluated, and c) figuring out how to decide when specific > conditions are met (because of the lack of objective > criteria). In addition, people have been carping on the > mailing list about how we need to be flexible - and condition > lists by their very nature are not flexible. Mike, Oddly, while I disagree with your conclusion, I agree with the above. The difference is that I don't expect an "if X, then you resigned" condition-based model to work very well in the edge cases and where someone was trying to game the system. It can't work well for the edge cases for all the reasons you list, especially because we are lousy at anticipating all possible cases and writing rules to match. More specifically, I'm ok with a procedure that works well when someone just disappears and stops performing -- a problem that I think has arisen around three times in the last 20 years. I'm also ok with the fact that such a procedure probably would not have worked for one of them and that it would fail any time an incumbent chose to fight expulsion, whether by stunts like "one out of every 3 meetings for exactly 5 minutes" or by nit-picking the rules. My only interest is to help these who, for one reason or other, have already slunk away into the night or otherwise disappeared make a graceful and efficient exit. That is an entirely different case from someone who is not performing but who actively wants to hold onto the job. For the latter cases --if someone is intentionally gaming the system or resisting expulsion or resignation in other ways-- I think the recall procedure, and all of the public unpleasantness and condemnation that go with it, is exactly right and that nothing new is needed (although see below). It doesn't let a body determine its own membership (if we don't want IESG or IAB members, even retiring ones, voting on the Nomcom because we are afraid of self-perpetuating bodies, we certainly shouldn't let them second-guess Nomcom decisions by ejecting members without any review external to the I* leadership). If someone is non-performing and being a jerk about it (and maybe just consistently being a jerk), I think it would be reasonable to let a supermajority of the relevant body initiate (and fast track the beginning of) a recall, but I note that the community has rejected less drastic ideas in the past. best, john