Forking this conversation a bit. I know a guy, partially disabled (he sends a lot of time in bed, reading papers, and writing code), who had to quit attending meetings 3 years ago, for health reasons. He monitors a couple working groups, still, and he stayed active in one working group, contributing ideas, testing code. He just helped push 3 of that wg's documents and code to final adoption (one as "bis") this ietf. He's a co-author of one RFC, and his work in the IETF is acknowledged in over a half dozen more, at least one a year for the last 6+ years. But he has no voting rights in the ietf, so far as I know, having only attended virtually. On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 5:41 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Spencer, Ted, > > --On Friday, March 22, 2019 03:51 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm top posting - how much of this discussion could we > > short-circuit and conclude by picking a number, and I don't > > know what number is right, for recall signature eligibility, of > > > > - people who are Nomcom-eligible, or > > - would be Nomcom-eligible if we counted registered remote > > participants the same way we count on-site participants? > >... > > If people have enough skin in the game to have registered for > > three out of the past five IETF meetings, as wither onsite or > > remote participants, that's at least a higher bar than me > > passing out a recall petition for middle school students to > > sign, the next time I spend the day talking to several hundred > > middle school students. > > > > And if that's not the right proxy for "people who care about > > the IETF, but don't travel to IETF meetings", what is? > > Depending on what we think the problem is that we are trying to > solve, one could figure out how to titrate the formula a bit, > e.g., by requiring remote participants to actually log into a WG > session or two rather than just registering, but yes. See > below. On the other hand, if one is going to go into the sock > puppet business, the incremental difficulty of setting up twenty > socket puppets over setting up, say, five, is likely to be small > indeed. The benefit also wouldn't come in terms of getting > someone out of a position because, AFAIK, no one has proposed > changing the rules for members of an actual recall committee, > much less the nomcom. Perhaps those need attention to but the > key issue at this point is just being able to initiate a recall. > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:07 AM Ted Hardie > > <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >... > >> I disagree that it is low. As written, the bar excludes all > >> of the people who are currently serving in any > >> nomcom-appointed role (all of the IESG, IAB, IETF LLC, > >> Trustees) and requires that the signatories be diverse in > >> origin: > >> > >> All individual and collective qualifications of > >> nominating committee eligibility are applicable, > >> including that no more than two signatories may have > >> the same primary affiliation. > >> > >> These are both trade-offs to avoid factional control, but > >> they make the effective bar much higher than it would be if > >> it were just 20 people out of the active IETF population. > >> Persuading others to put their names out as making the > >> request has not been shown to work well, even in cases where > >> the issues were well known. > > I think the latter has become more important over time. It may > be just me, but, even for the much lighter-weight (and usually > less personally threatening to specific people in the > leadership) appeals procedure, I'm hearing a lot more "not worth > it given the risk of retaliation" comments than I heard a decade > or so ago. AFAIK, that is more a change in the participant > population than an increase in obnoxious behavior by the > leadership but the effect is the same either way -- raising the > bar to effective use of either appeals or the recall procedure. > > >> I don't necessarily disagree with where the bar is; I've gone > >> back and forth on that over time and may do so again. But I > >> think the evidence is that it is pretty difficult to exercise > >> and I agree that it is even more difficult for active > >> contributors who could not themselves sign. > > Agreed. > > No reason why either of you should remember, but I posted a > draft to address a subset of these issues somewhat over thirteen > years ago. It didn't go anywhere and I never got around posting > a revision that reflected a few of the comments I got at the > time. Mostly because I don't have the time or energy to pursue > this much further but partially because I'm not confident I have > the right answers (like Ted, I've gone back and forth about at > least parts of it), I've handed the source for that draft and a > few hints over to Subramanian Moonesamy. I trust he will pursue > the issue via an I-D, which will at least help focus the > discussion. He may list me as co-author because of the original > draft, but I'm leaving all of the fine-tuning decisions to him > and, after the draft is posted, to the community. > > best, > john > -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740
