Hi, SM,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:38 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Spencer,
At 05:52 PM 16-03-2019, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>Beyond that ... the Nomcom position review process, and the recall
>process, described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437 would apply.
I read RFC 7437. The IETF RFC states that it documents an Internet
Best Current Practice. The rule for "member recall" creates two
classes of "members of the IETF community", i.e. a voting class and a
disenfranchised class. If it is pointed out to me that the recall
process would apply, I unfortunately have to disagree with
that. Should the rule be considered as Internet Worst Current
Practice given that it favors a group of persons over another?
I have opinions about the definition of "Nomcom-eligible" in RFC 7437, but note that my quoted text was the 4th or 5th level of response to an instance of ADs ignoring their own conflict of interest (and thanks for changing the subject for your e-mail here).
So the point I was making in my note was that there are multiple levels of safeguards before we get anywhere close to an RFC 7437 recall. If a working group, the AD in question, and the IESG don't see a problem when there's a problem, we're really off the rails and into the weeds.
It wasn't my intention to make judgements in favor of, or against, the requirements in RFC 7437 to sign a recall petition.
And it's reasonable for people who have opinions about this to write drafts proposing improvements - heck, even I have written drafts that updated the Nomcom process.
Spencer
