Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

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

 



On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, October 29, 2012 14:06 +0100 Eliot Lear
> <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Bob, everyone,
>>
>> As I've mentioned, I'd prefer an alternative to what the
>> authors have written.  Call this the "let's program ourselves
>> out of a paper bag" option, when we all agree.  This may be a
>> rule we would wish to generalize.  Here is the basis for what
>> I propose:
>>
>>  1. We have existing procedures to resolve contested removals
>> – the     recall process.
>>  2. "Uncontested" essentially means that we as a community are
>> in     unanimous agreement that the position is vacant.  That
>> means that by     definition, any "no" votes from a body means
>> it's contested.  3. The least amount of power should be
>> delegated to our bodies as is     necessary for the
>> organization's smooth operation.  4. Procedural arguments on
>> the IETF list are tiresome, when we all     agree on the right
>> outcome ;-)
>>
>> With that in mind, I've attempted to reduce changes to a more
>> simplified form, as follows:
>>...
>> NEW:
>>
>>     When an IETF body unanimously believes that a position on
>> that     body has been vacated, they may request confirmation
>> of this by     the community through an Extended Last Call
>> with their reasoning.     Should no objections be received
>> during that period, the position is     said to be vacant.
>
> Eliot,
>
> I generally like the general direction in which you are headed.
> On other other hand, your specific proposal creates an
> opportunity for a single individual, perhaps even one who
> follows the mailing list but who is not an active participant in
> the IETF or who just doesn't like the procedure, to disrupt
> things and throw us back on recalls.   Given the number of
> occasionally-grumpy people in the extended community, that does
> not seem wise.

+1

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx


> Quick thought and strawman suggestion: how about we take your
> general model, but instead of using the absence of any
> objections as the "not vacant, requires recall" trigger, perhaps
> we could borrow a little bit from the recall model.  For
> example, we might say that deciding that the procedure doesn't
> apply when the body thinks the position is vacant requires a
> petition endorsed by some number of people.  The "20" of the
> recall procedure seems a bit high to me, but you get the general
> idea.  One person claiming the position isn't really vacant
> could be just a grump; ten or twenty probably indicates that
> something odd is going on and a more heavyweight procedure is
> required.
>
>    john
>



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