+1 -- Ted Faber <theodore.v.faber@xxxxxxxx> Senior Engineering Specialist Computer Systems Research Department The Aerospace Corporation 310-336-7373 ________________________________________ From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 15:18 To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Recall process On 21-Mar-19 21:52, Adrian Farrel wrote: > People signing a recall petition are not making judgements. I disagree. It's not the final judgment, but it's still clearly a preliminary judgment and it will have a distinctly negative effect on the individual concerned, whatever the outcome. So IMHO it's a very serious matter that requires personal knowledge. Brian Those judgements are made by the recall committee. > > The recall petition simply requests that a situation is looked into. > > Let's take an extreme case. > > Suppose an AD made a decision that was hugely detrimental to remote participants while favouring people who attend meetings in person. This would only be something subject to a recall petition if the beneficiaries of the decision decided to issue the recall petition. This detail disenfranchises the increasing number of remote participants. > > Now, we all know that such situations are unlikely. We also know that we haven't seen a lot of recall petitions let alone actual recalls. But that is not the point. > > There are two key points to these rules: > > - To be able to handle extreme and exceptional conditions correctly > - To present a face that is open, welcoming, and fair > > We fail the second of these, and the first looks shaky. > > The rule was written before registering for remote participation was a thing. > > It's an easy fix. Allow petitions to be signed by people who have registered or attended. Change no other parts of the rules. > > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: 21 March 2019 03:48 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Recall process > > On 21-Mar-19 15:21, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Scott, >> At 04:53 PM 20-03-2019, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>> are you referring to the people who could qualify for the noncom and >>> those who could not? >>> >>> just trying to be sure what you are referring to >> >> I was referring to the rule in Section 7 of RFC 7437 which sets the >> requirements for qualified signatories. I was not referring to the >> nomcom process. > > Yes, I believe it intentionally creates two classes of participants - > those with, or without, reasonable personal knowledge of the individual > concerned and the situation that has arisen. > > As I attend fewer meetings than in the past, I certainly find it > harder to make judgments about tricky situations. So I find the rule > reasonable. > > Brian > > . >
