On 3/13/15 9:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I just noticed that the draft uses the phrase "IETF management position" > without defining it. I think that is in itself a bug. > > Does it mean "a position which under the rules of BCP10 is > potentially subject to a Recall"? > > Or does it also include people appointed by ADs (WG chairs > and secretaries, Directorate members)? > > This needs to be clarified. And they are two very different cases. > > For the AD appointees, common logic would suggest that the Ombudsteam > be allowed (not obliged) to inform the AD, in confidence of course. > > For the recallable positions, the situation is much more tricky > because a recall petition needs 20 signatories and is announced. > Let's get real : if that happens, the confidentiality *will* be > breached. I don't think we can know that a priori. Our previous experiment with the recall process involved unavailability, not some causal condition. I don't think there's particular merit in spelling out how a recall will be iniatiated, as that is dictated by circumstances and the power to do is vested in nomcom qualified individuals At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society President the recall of any sitting IAB, IAOC, or IESG member. ... The petition must include a statement of justification for the recall and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation. > Brian >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature