John,
On 25-Mar-19 01:12, John C Klensin wrote:
....
> But, for initiating or endorsing a petition. it seems to me that
> the only personal experience that is necessary is knowledge of
> whatever the problem is that is believed to justify kicking
> someone out.
Yes, I would hope that the focus is on the problem and not on
the individual. So if you can write a recall petition purely as an
objective problem statement (e.g., "no drafts from the WGs managed
by X have been put on the IESG agenda in the last 6 months") there
is indeed no real need for personal acquaintance with X. But if
the problem is more personalized (e.g., "X is unable to work with
other ADs" or "X is consistently dismissive of WG Chairs"),
it's more tricky.
Maybe a requirement that some fraction (e.g. half) of the petitioners
must be NomCom-eligible would be reasonable?
Brian
> To me, arguing that requires frequent meeting
> participation would be fairly close to arguing that someone who
> is not attending three of five meetings cannot use the
> anti-harassment procedures because, being remote, they can't be
> harassed or otherwise abused. At present, a person in that
> position cannot initiate a recall without organizing twenty
> people who are frequent meeting attendees and otherwise
> nomcom-eligible. That is hard because they don't have the
> personal experience and contacts for which nomcom eligibility is
> a surrogate, precisely because they are not attending meetings.
> There are words for that sort of arrangement, and they aren't
> very nice.
>
> best,
> john
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
