Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--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





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]