Hi Adrian,
At 01:07 AM 25-03-2019, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Just reading this before breakfast and thus without coffee.
It's good work, thanks.
Thanks for the feedback.
A few small comments below.
I'll say yes to the comments about the Abstract and the one about punctuation.
---
Because it comes before the exposition of how many signatures you are
proposing, I would add to 2.3 something to the effect of...
OLD
This
document also proposes to decrease the number of signatures required
to avoid making it impractical to invoke the first step of the recall
procedures.
NEW
While recognising that some form of barrier is a good thing to prevent
capricious use of recall petitions, this
document also proposes to decrease the number of signatures required
to avoid making it impractical to invoke the first step of the recall
procedures.
END
I would like to discuss this one with John. My opinion is that it is
not a good idea to distinguish between whether a recall petition is
capricious or not as it may be viewed as forming an adverse opinion
beforehand. I would look at "some form of barrier" in terms of "threshold".
---
For completeness, I think this document should also note that 7776 made an
update to 7437 as follows...
3.1. Recall Petitions Initiated by the Ombudsteam
[RFC7776] updates [RFC7437] by allowing the
Ombudsteam to form a recall petition on its own and without
requiring signatories from the community. This document
does not make any change to [RFC7776] or the Ombudsteam
procedures and any petition originating from the Ombudsteam
shall be treated in all ways like any other recall petition as
described in [RFC7437]: that is, the fact of the petition and its
signatories (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF
community, and a Recall Committee Chair shall be appointed
to complete the Recall Committee process.
RFC 7776 specifies that there is an expectation that the Recall
Committee will receive a briefing. I gather that is the alternative
to "a statement of justification" (Section 7.1 of RFC 7437). I
wanted to avoid getting into a discussion of RFC 7776. That is why
the document is silent about it.
On reading your suggestion I noticed that the number of signatories
is mentioned in RFC 7776. This document proposes a second change so
that the number is only specified in one place; the rationale is make
future updates easier.
I would like to leave this one open for now.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
