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 >