On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:45:24PM +0100, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/25/19 4:30 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:26:30AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > >> That's a process error. If the chair(s) don't fix it when brought to their > >> attention, the AD should. And if not, that should be grounds for appeal. > > Agreed, and in that instance, we did. Yes, that was just an anecdote, > > not data, given in response to a comment about the risk of that. > > It's a major screw-up and one that seems to be happening more > often (plus people referring to what we do as "voting"), but the > problem seems to be happening at the WG chair level with not a > lot of correction from the IESG, frankly. That's fair. Imagine a worse situation where some of the participants believe a recall is in order, but none of them are NomCom-eligible. To my knowledge we've not reached that situation yet, so it seems academic, but it's better to know how to deal with such a situation before it arises. I don't object to the rules as they are, though I would prefer that continued eligibility requirements be lower than initial eligibility requirements. Nico --
