(trimming again)
--On Monday, March 16, 2015 13:02 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Calling such folk "management' is a bit awkward, however,
> since their roles are not usually described that way in the
> rest of the world.
And this is the reason by a "subject to recall" formulation like
the one Barry suggested is really crisp and unambiguous. Of
course, it we really do want that rule to reach to WG Chairs
(who are really easy to remove if confidentiality does not get
in the way because they serve at the pleasure of ADs), then a
more complex formulation is needed (although, in the spirit of
Barry's comment, "anyone subject to recall plus WG Chairs" would
work).
> Perhaps the language should, instead refer to anyone with an
> explicitly assigned role?
That would probably work for me. But I think that, before
adopting it, people should review the recent effort to make the
WG Secretary role much more "explicitly assigned" and figure out
if they would like this rule if that, or the next such effort,
had gone a different way.
I'm still more worried about the principle of exempting people
whose positions, if abused in a harassing-type fashion, could
cause far more damage that that of the typical out-of-control
IETF participant, from being quickly removed from those
positions if their behavior cannot otherwise be mitigated.
john