Echoing John here, he very succinctly explains why setting out clear lines of what does or does not constitute abandonment invites abuse. If someone is acting against the interests of the IETF, we have lots of ways of dealing with it. If someone falls off the face of the Earth, and repeated attempts to contact them using legally recognized methods of notice fails, and more importantly they have a positive track record that spans over a decade, we can use our existing nomcom tools to replace their nomcom-appointed duties. I would offer that a person in such a position with such demonstrated dedication would not want us to do otherwise. On Oct 26, 2012, at 1:16 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --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 > > >