>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Ted> I think the old catchphrase for this was "rule of law, not rule
Ted> of men", and I agree that there are fundamental benefits of
Ted> that approach. But the starting point of this discussion was
Ted> questioning why we seem to need process for everything--even
Ted> one off situations that have "special circumstances" all over
Ted> them. I think if we could agree to evaluate the impact of
Ted> individual decisions according to your criteria ("what's the
Ted> impact?"), before deciding on the need for process, we would be
Ted> standing on common ground.
Ted> But it sounds like we disagree on whether we can trust our
Ted> current or future leadership to make that sort of call. While
Ted> I think that increased trust would increase the latitude that
Ted> the community would extend to our leadership in ways that would
Ted> improve our lot, it sounds like you would believe that this
Ted> would grant too much power. Is that a fair summary of where we
Ted> disagree?
Yes, it sound like a fair summary of where disagreement would be if it
exists.
I don't know if there are cases where we've recently disagreed about how
much latitude to grant our leadership.
As an example, I think we both agreed that it was reasonable for the IAOC to vacate the
position when the facts were first presented. I can't remember if you
are currently on the iaoc list. I did send them a question wondering if
they were taking the right approach, but that question was based on an
error in my understanding of the facts. Once that was clarified, I
apologized for wasting time.
When additional facts came to light, I favored using the recall
process. However, several of our leaders seem to have agreed with me
that the additional facts changed the situation and made the formal
process desirable to invoke.
Leader: We have a member of our IAOC who is not responsive. We've done a
bunch to try and contact them. We want to declare the position
vacant. Have we missed anything?
Participant 1: I think you always need to use the recall process for
this!
Participant 2: I've looked at the impact page. I can't see any of the
types of impact that are indicators of needing formal process that apply
here. So, I think this is fine.
Participant 3: Well, I've looked at the impact page too, and if our
leaders had the ability to remove someone who was participating simply
by claiming they were not, it could have all sorts of impact on
fairness; you could remove people you disagree with etc.
because of these reasons. Have we missed anything?
Participant A) I think that we really need a real process here.
Participant B) I've looked at the impact page, and this
Participant 4: Sounds like your concern would be addressed if the
leaders made it clear that we'd be in a different situation if the
inactive member came forward and objected to their position being
declared vacant; that would remove the potential impact you're concerned
about.
Participant 3: O, yeah, you're right. So if we're clear that complete
silence on the part of the person being removed is a factor here, I
think it's fine to allow a lot more trust.
My point is not for the "impact page" to be a formal part of process; in
fact doing that would go against the entire idea of building trust in
our leaders. My thought here is to find some mechanism to tease apart
the issues where one person thinks trust should be given and another
disagrees. My hope is by having discussion points we can focus our
discussion and better come to agreement on whether there is impact when
someone disagrees. Ultimately, I think you'll need something like this
to have a constructive response to giving leaders more trust when
community members seem to want to give less trust.